Kshama Sawant Has Won City Council Seat [Archive]

blake 3:17

16th November 2013, 05:38

As presented by the ultra capitalist Forbes magazine:

Why Is Seattle Socialist Kshama Sawant Allowed To Teach Economics?
137 comments, 2 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments

I don’t cover economics regularly because it is not traditionally considered science. Furthermore, the field too often generates research and commentary that employs more voodoo than a witch doctor. It is largely for these reasons that economics is often referred to as the “dismal science” and why President Harry Truman wanted to meet a one-armed economist.

Still, economics can provide powerful insights on market behavior. Indeed, economists from various ideological backgrounds have managed to reach a consensus on several major issues, and from that vantage point, we can say the field has developed something resembling scientific knowledge.

One of those insights is that people respond to incentives. If I offer a teenager $50 to mow my lawn — and an extra $25 if he trims the bushes — then I can expect to shell out $75. I just offered my little helper a handsome incentive, and there’s a very good chance he’ll respond to it. This insight on human behavior is so basic and obvious that it is listed as one of the foundations of economics in Harvard economist Greg Mankiw’s textbook Principles of Economics.

Unfortunately, socialists never learned this lesson. In a socialist economy, incentives play little (if any) role. Therefore, as University of Michigan-Flint economist Mark J. Perry wrote, “By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail.”

Yet, shockingly, socialists can regularly be found on college campuses. Kshama Sawant, an economics teacher at Seattle Central Community College, openly endorses socialism. She also is running for Seattle City Council and, with the latest election returns, claims 49.5% of the vote. With many ballots left to count, she could still win.

How on earth can somebody who rejects basic academic knowledge be so close to winning a city council seat? Even more troublingly, how can somebody with her beliefs be allowed to teach an economics course? This would be analogous to allowing an AIDS denier to teach a medical microbiology course, a 9/11 truther to teach a foreign policy course, or a creationist to teach an evolution course. (Amazingly, UMass-Amherst biologist Lynn Margulis had the dubious distinction of being both an AIDS denier and a 9/11 truther!)

Just how far out of the mainstream is Dr. Sawant? She favors collectivizing Amazon. “Collectivizing” is a nice word socialists use to mean seizing assets and turning control of operations over to the government.

If Dr. Sawant’s embrace of socialism isn’t bad enough, she also endorses a terribly destructive policy called “rent control.” This policy can take various forms, but basically, landlords are not allowed to charge market rates for apartments. That might sound like a nice thing if you’re a renter, but Dr. Mankiw — citing a 1992 paper in American Economic Review — states that 93% of economists reject rent control because it “reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.” University of Chicago lecturer Charles Wheelan, author of Naked Economics, agrees:

f you asked ten economists why there is a shortage of cabs and apartments in New York City, all ten would tell you that limitations on the number of taxi medallions and rent control are what restrict the supply of these goods and services.

I have two questions to which I will never expect to receive a rational answer.

First, why would Seattle Central Community College allow Dr. Sawant (yes, she actually has a Ph.D. in economics) anywhere near students? And second, to the citizens of Seattle, how does one of the most educated cities in America allow themselves to get duped?

[I]This article was originally posted on RealClearScience.

Popular Front of Judea

16th November 2013, 05:52

Finally saw Milk tonight. I realized while watching it that you know it was about time that an out socialist won a city hall seat. :grin:

Sawant on the Chris Hayes show tonight: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/11/15/kshama-sawant-goes-national

argeiphontes

16th November 2013, 06:25

Off topic, but... Outside of the fact that Forbes applies to about 1% of the population and those striving for the one percent, and that the usual straw man is being addressed...

One of those insights is that people respond to incentives. If I offer a teenager $50 to mow my lawn — and an extra $25 if he trims the bushes — then I can expect to shell out $75. I just offered my little helper a handsome incentive, and there’s a very good chance he’ll respond to it. This insight on human behavior is so basic and obvious that it is listed as one of the foundations of economics in Harvard economist Greg Mankiw’s textbook Principles of Economics.

...this Mankow character sounds like a horse's ass if he doesn't even integrate basic motivational theory that most capitalists already know and are implementing in their companies:

http://www.thersa.org/events/rsaanimate/animate/rsa-animate-drive

In fact, it seems that capitalist incentives are a dismal failure in empirical practice:

Gallup, 2013. http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace.aspx shows that 70% of workers "emotionally disconnected" and approximately 20% are "actively disengaged" meaning that they are acting out their unhappiness and, basically, sabotaging their workplaces.

And for those people who only understand credentials and not ideas: Richard D. Wolff is also a Harvard economist. He's been to Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, in fact. So, my economist is better than your economist! ;)

Anyway...

Popular Front of Judea

16th November 2013, 07:57

It has started...

http://i.imgur.com/eBFtdO9.jpg

#FF0000

16th November 2013, 08:33

Socialists are irrelevant politically.

Whose fault is that, do you think?

The Feral Underclass

16th November 2013, 11:10

Tim Cornelis

16th November 2013, 12:52

Brotto RÃ¼hle

16th November 2013, 13:18

Yay, another social democrat gets elected. Congrats people, go home now, watch her do nothing. Watch actual socialism not ever be mentioned by her.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th November 2013, 13:18

This is a serious question, so I expect a serious response. To those who are congratulating this as some kind of victory: What do you think is going to happen now? In other words, what is the long term strategy of being elected to the city council?

Not much, I think the usual 'spread socialist messages' kind of route; in any case did SAlt ever say why she was running to begin with? Did they have a rationale from the start or was the campaign this progressive evolution which one day kinda found themselves in? Regardless I do not think it will mean a great deal in the context of the wider movement. I am more interested in how SAlt will utilize this victory for future campaigns and how their propaganda will reform.

KurtFF8

16th November 2013, 16:09

I think this is a great development. I doubt that the Socialist Alternative sees the next step as nation wide revolution and I would imagine they are quite aware of the limitations of this.

That said, this victory should be embraced by the broader Left as a sign that our message (and label of socialist or Marxist) really can resonate with people.

Will there be things worth criticizing about the SAlt going forward from the perspective of other groups and tendencies? I'm sure. But to focus on those things when a Marxist just won a citywide election in a major West Coast city doesn't make sense at this moment. We should applaud the victory and try to build off of it.

I don't understand when a (even if it is minor) breakthrough like this happens, the rest of the Left has to find a way to distance itself from it instead of acknowledge that this is a positive development for the Left not just Socialist Alternative (although obviously it certainly is for them). It reminds me of the title of that recent article about Russell Brand: Russell Brand and the Left's Preferred Powerlessness

Brotto RÃ¼hle

16th November 2013, 16:16

Remus Bleys

16th November 2013, 16:23

Most Americans think Socialism is what they have in Sweden.

So no.

Comrade Subvert, can't you see what a boon that is for the working class? When we say communism, the ignorant masses who require a bourgeois council seat in order to gain class consciousness, will no longer think of nazi germany, now they think sweden, showing that it is possible to elect socialism in!
Oh, what joy!

Brotto RÃ¼hle

16th November 2013, 16:24

Comrade Subvert, can't you see what a boon that is for the working class? When we say communism, the ignorant masses who require a bourgeois council seat in order to gain class consciousness, will no longer think of nazi germany, now they think sweden, showing that it is possible to elect socialism in!
Oh, what joy!

A glorious day indeed. The petty-bourgeois Sawant can now teach from a seat of POWER, to the proletariat brainless dolts. She will awaken class consciousness by winning election after election. Maybe, someday, we will have 2 SOCIALIST COUNCIL MEMBERS!!!

KurtFF8

16th November 2013, 16:26

Most Americans think Socialism is what they have in Sweden.

So no.

What do you mean "so no"? That's not even a response to what I wrote.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

16th November 2013, 16:28

What do you mean "so no"? That's not even a response to what I wrote.

Well, basically, my good social democratic friend, Sawant winning a council seat....means absolutely nothing. No different than when the NDP became the official opposition in Canada. Or Francois Hollande became president of France.

Per Levy

16th November 2013, 16:34

That said, this victory should be embraced by the broader Left as a sign that our message (and label of socialist or Marxist) really can resonate with people.

and what is "our message"? that 15$ a work hour is good? hey its more than i make right now, id take but thats not "our message" or is it? cause if that would be the case the social-dems and greens and conservatives in germany are spreading "our message" as well. not to mention that sawant cant push through her campign goals anyway so bye bye 15$/h it seems, all she can do than is playing the opposition role in that council so yeah, have fun with that.

Sam_b

16th November 2013, 16:34

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

16th November 2013, 16:37

Right listen up, more of these sort of content-less fishing posts in this thread will be considered as spam and trolling, and will be dealt with appropriately. So I suggest you knock this off.

If those are content-less then this entire thread is a black hole. Those posts are just as substantive as the back-padding rubbish you liberal lot are spewing.

KurtFF8

16th November 2013, 16:40

Well, basically, my good social democratic friend, Sawant winning a council seat....means absolutely nothing. No different than when the NDP became the official opposition in Canada. Or Francois Hollande became president of France.

How am I a social democrat exactly? Are you reading the posts you respond to before you type your responses?

and what is "our message"? that 15$ a work hour is good? hey its more than i make right now, id take but thats not "our message" or is it? cause if that would be the case the social-dems and greens and conservatives in germany are spreading "our message" as well. not to mention that sawant cant push through her campign goals anyway so bye bye 15$/h it seems, all she can do than is playing the opposition role in that council so yeah, have fun with that.

Actually that slogan of $15 an hour isn't "our message" but comes from a very particular working class struggle (of fast food workers against the major fast food corporations). So it is quite literally the popularization of the demands of the working class through a political campaign. How is that something we should shit all over because it was done through a group or tendency that wasn't our own?

Again as I said before, I don't think that (at least based on the very limited interactions with them I've had) SAlt has illusions about what the actual power of holding that seat entails. But there is a broader concern of the campaign, who it mobilized, what the significance of it was, etc.

What you're saying is similar to the talk of "oh what will protest really accomplish anyway?!" or "oh what will this particular strike really accomplish for other workers!?"

Do I have some issues with the way the campaign and media appearances, etc were handled by SAlt? Of course, I come from a different kind of tendency. But that doesn't mean I can't see a positive development when it's done by another group, and it's frustrating to see others feel the need to try to bash something that is to me at least quite obviously a positive development.

RedHal

16th November 2013, 16:45

There have been 2(?) CWI members elected in Europe, maybe those in Europe who are supporters or detractors of this strategy can give some insights into what to expect from Sawant.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

16th November 2013, 16:47

How am I a social democrat exactly? Are you reading the posts you respond to before you type your responses?Anyone who supports Sawant/SAlt, are social democrats.

Actually that slogan of $15 an hour isn't "our message" but comes from a very particular working class struggle (of fast food workers against the major fast food corporations). So it is quite literally the popularization of the demands of the working class through a political campaign. How is that something we should shit all over because it was done through a group or tendency that wasn't our own?Because it isn't tied into the idea of "Continue to struggle, you must fight for it!". Rather, it was tied into "VOTE FOR ME AND I WILL REALIZE YOUR DREAMZZZZZZZZZZ". Pure opportunism.

Again as I said before, I don't think that (at least based on the very limited interactions with them I've had) SAlt has illusions about what the actual power of holding that seat entails. But there is a broader concern of the campaign, who it mobilized, what the significance of it was, etc.Mobilized in what way? To mark a ballot and believe it will make their lives better as opposed to the direct mass action of the working class?

What you're saying is similar to the talk of "oh what will protest really accomplish anyway?!" or "oh what will this particular strike really accomplish for other workers!?"Really? Comparing an opportunist liberal saying "Vote for me, I give you more pay" to workers striking and whatnot is equivalent in your books?

Do I have some issues with the way the campaign and media appearances, etc were handled by SAlt? Of course, I come from a different kind of tendency. But that doesn't mean I can't see a positive development when it's done by another group, and it's frustrating to see others feel the need to try to bash something that is to me at least quite obviously a positive development.What's positive again? Is it the fact that a bunch of the working poor were duped into thinking they had a chance to get legislation passed raising the minimum wage (to 15$), or is it positive that they will associate "socialist", yet again, with social democracy?

The Feral Underclass

16th November 2013, 16:53

I don't understand when a (even if it is minor) breakthrough like this happens, the rest of the Left has to find a way to distance itself from it instead of acknowledge that this is a positive development for the Left

Perhaps the understanding will come if you start from the assumption that not everyone on the left thinks it's a positive development.

I'll ask again: What is the long term strategy of getting someone elected to the city council?

Per Levy

16th November 2013, 16:57

How am I a social democrat exactly? Are you reading the posts you respond to before you type your responses?

Actually that slogan of $15 an hour isn't "our message" but comes from a very particular working class struggle (of fast food workers against the major fast food corporations). So it is quite literally the popularization of the demands of the working class through a political campaign. How is that something we should shit all over because it was done through a group or tendency that wasn't our own?

Again as I said before, I don't think that (at least based on the very limited interactions with them I've had) SAlt has illusions about what the actual power of holding that seat entails. But there is a broader concern of the campaign, who it mobilized, what the significance of it was, etc.

What you're saying is similar to the talk of "oh what will protest really accomplish anyway?!" or "oh what will this particular strike really accomplish for other workers!?"

Do I have some issues with the way the campaign and media appearances, etc were handled by SAlt? Of course, I come from a different kind of tendency. But that doesn't mean I can't see a positive development when it's done by another group, and it's frustrating to see others feel the need to try to bash something that is to me at least quite obviously a positive development.

look this has nothing to do with tendency stuff, i dont care if she is trot, anarch or left-com(even though the 2 latter dont acutal think electoral tactics work), my point is that first of all i dont see electoral tactics as viable anymore, because they were done to death and look where we are today. i also doubt the propagandic value of such tactics. secondly i criticize all this talk of how amazing this victory is for socialism, just 2 exaples from the other thread this is "a great victory for socialism" and sawant will "bring us closer to socialist change".

also, a strike shows workers that they can fight to gain something, fight to make a better living, voting for someone in hope they will better your life is on the other hand is a illusion and will just dissapoint you.

ed miliband

16th November 2013, 17:01

there were people here getting excited when hollande won in france because it showed 'people are no longer scared of socialism'. completely detached from reality.

Per Levy

16th November 2013, 17:02

There have been 2(?) CWI members elected in Europe, maybe those in Europe who are supporters or detractors of this strategy can give some insights into what to expect from Sawant.

well i can give you a little story about the "sozialistische alternative" or socialist alternative here in germany, they are a sister party of the us SA, they have a a few seats in the largest town in my homestate and the play the opposition there, otherwise the german SAV pretty much joined the social-democratic party "die linke" completly and stoped calling themselfs a party and just are an organization as it is right now. probally in hope to push said social-dem party more to the left or whatever.

KurtFF8

16th November 2013, 17:12

Anyone who supports Sawant/SAlt, are social democrats.

I guess this goes back to the whole "read posts before you respond to them" point: I am not a SAlt member or supporter. My entire point (which you seem to have missed) is that we should praise this event and see it for what it is: an example of the popularization of socialism in the US.

If you're an activist in the US, you know that this is itself quite an accomplishment.

Because it isn't tied into the idea of "Continue to struggle, you must fight for it!". Rather, it was tied into "VOTE FOR ME AND I WILL REALIZE YOUR DREAMZZZZZZZZZZ". Pure opportunism.

How? And how is that not a strawman argument? Their entire campaign relied on more than just SAlt but the networks and organizations around Occupy and unions (who endorsed her).

Mobilized in what way? To mark a ballot and believe it will make their lives better as opposed to the direct mass action of the working class?

Considering I wasn't involved in their campaign, I can't comment directly on this. But as I just pointed out, the campaign itself came from the OWS/Union/Activist scene in that city. That broad movement is itself based on mass mobilization.

Really? Comparing an opportunist liberal saying "Vote for me, I give you more pay" to workers striking and whatnot is equivalent in your books?

I'm not sure I understand this point.

What's positive again? Is it the fact that a bunch of the working poor were duped into thinking they had a chance to get legislation passed raising the minimum wage (to 15$), or is it positive that they will associate "socialist", yet again, with social democracy?

You're not even making an argument, you're just going "but they're social democrats!" as if that's an actual point in the first place.

Perhaps the understanding will come if you start from the assumption that not everyone on the left thinks it's a positive development.

I'll ask again: What is the long term strategy of getting someone elected to the city council?

I didn't claim that everyone on the Left thinks it's a positive development. My entire point is that it's strange to watch large parts of the left trip over each other to point out how this is "actually" something we should just ignore or attack which I find absurd.

And how would I be able to comment on the Social Alternative's long term strategy here exactly? Have I not made it clear multiple times that I'm not involved with that group?

look this has nothing to do with tendency stuff, i dont care if she is trot, anarch or left-com(even though the 2 latter dont acutal think electoral tactics work), my point is that first of all i dont see electoral tactics as viable anymore, because they were done to death and look where we are today. i also doubt the propagandic value of such tactics. secondly i criticize all this talk of how amazing this victory is for socialism, just 2 exaples from the other thread this is "a great victory for socialism" and sawant will "bring us closer to socialist change".

also, a strike shows workers that they can fight to gain something, fight to make a better living, voting for someone in hope they will better your life is on the other hand is a illusion and will just dissapoint you.

But you seem to be criticizing her campaign as if it was like most progressive Democratic campaigns, when in reality the composition of who she represents (both via class forces and politically) is quite different.

Socialists and Communists have used elections throughout bourgeois countries since the 1800s. They've never claimed that electoral politics is itself an end but rather one tool amongst many (which includes agitating for strike action or confrontation with the stat,e etc.) and I'm not seeing where SAlt itself is claiming that this is an end.

I will say that their rhetoric has been quite toned down and they could have done a much better job at that (amongst other things, they very rarely even mentioned their own organization throughout this whole thing it seems which I find to be strange).

there were people here getting excited when hollande won in france because it showed 'people are no longer scared of socialism'. completely detached from reality.

I'm not sure how that's similar though.

ed miliband

16th November 2013, 17:19

I'm not sure how that's similar though.

it's similar because people are trotting out the same old shit here: 'oh, they elected a socialist SO PEOPLE AREN'T SCARED OF SOCIALISM!!' lol

KurtFF8

16th November 2013, 17:22

it's similar because people are trotting out the same old shit here: 'oh, they elected a socialist SO PEOPLE AREN'T SCARED OF SOCIALISM!!' lol

Again I'm not sure how that makes it similar. Anyone who said that about France hasn't been paying attention to French politics for the past 100 years or so considering the PS is one of the main 2 parties in France.

However in the US and in Seattle specifically, there hasn't been anyone who even calls themselves socialist elected to a city wide position in 100 years.

They're two completely different events for a host of reasons.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should over hype this too much, but there is quite a lot of buzz about this even in mainstream media outlets. So for us to respond to that coverage (and respond to our friends, acquaintances, etc.) with "oh well this doesn't really matter) just seems a strange response.

The Feral Underclass

16th November 2013, 17:26

I didn't claim that everyone on the Left thinks it's a positive development.

Then why do you seem so confused that people don't think that?

My entire point is that it's strange to watch large parts of the left trip over each other to point out how this is "actually" something we should just ignore or attack which I find absurd.

There's nothing strange or absurd about it at all. People have provided numerous explanations for why they are not celebrating this as some kind of victory.

And how would I be able to comment on the Social Alternative's long term strategy here exactly? Have I not made it clear multiple times that I'm not involved with that group?

But you support the tactic of electioneering, so presumably you have some idea of what the long term strategy would be.

ed miliband

16th November 2013, 17:33

Again I'm not sure how that makes it similar. Anyone who said that about France hasn't been paying attention to French politics for the past 100 years or so considering the PS is one of the main 2 parties in France.

However in the US and in Seattle specifically, there hasn't been anyone who even calls themselves socialist elected to a city wide position in 100 years.

They're two completely different events for a host of reasons.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should over hype this too much, but there is quite a lot of buzz about this even in mainstream media outlets. So for us to respond to that coverage (and respond to our friends, acquaintances, etc.) with "oh well this doesn't really matter) just seems a strange response.

yeah, of course they're two completely different situations. don't think it changes the fact the argument is shit in both cases.

regardless, i posted that not as a direct comparison, but to highlight the levels of delusion some on here operate under.

Sam_b

16th November 2013, 18:24

Those posts are just as substantive as the back-padding rubbish you liberal lot are spewing

I've not actually expressed an opinion about the Sawant campaign at all. Maybe you should actually read posts before making such generalisations about me, though your track record of doing so has not been particularly strong at that so far. I suggest if you have problems with the way this thread should be dealt with you should do so via PM or the appropriate moderation forum.

The posts are not substantive at all, they are looking to recreate the other Sawant thread where all these issues are being discussed. Why should this carry on to a second thread?

argeiphontes

16th November 2013, 18:57

well i can give you a little story about the "sozialistische alternative" or socialist alternative here in germany, they are a sister party of the us SA, they have a a few seats in the largest town in my homestate and the play the opposition there, otherwise the german SAV pretty much joined the social-democratic party "die linke" completly and stoped calling themselfs a party and just are an organization as it is right now. probally in hope to push said social-dem party more to the left or whatever.

Here in the US we don't even have anything like that. The spectrum of debate has been pushed so far to the right that nonleftists think that Obama is a socialist.

Anyone can read SA's position (http://www.socialistalternative.org/about/) and conclude that they're social democrats, but shifting the spectrum helps all of us. What's the fear? Is she going to fix capitalism or something?

I don't expect left communists to support any kind of electoral activity, but personally I don't see a big difference in the various areas of activity and their effect on mobilization or consciousness. Besides, as Kurt mentioned, leftists have used politics in the past. Where would these efforts have been better spent, in a way that actually had an effect in the real world that could be built upon? That would be my question to the detractors.

People (the "masses") think of electoral activity as a valid political path, so I would let them go down it. If they end up disillusioned, they might look for other ways of achieving their goals. See, everybody wins ;)

Art Vandelay

16th November 2013, 19:19

Where would these efforts have been better spent, in a way that actually had an effect in the real world that could be built upon? That would be my question to the detractors

I was purposely not posting in this thread, since I was finding it ammusing, but I felt like that was a good question. In concrete terms, relating to the situation in Seattle/Minieapolis and without relying on sloganeering or vague formulations, what should have been done differently? Keep in mind this question isnt simply about running a candidate, but also all of the ground work and resulting links made with the working class, which comprise the totality of the campaign. As a CWI member who took part in one of the campaigns in question, that is certainly something I'd be interested in seeing. And I mean that genueinly, for purposes of self reflection and for the organizing work I hope to accomplish in Canada.

#FF0000

16th November 2013, 19:30

yeah, of course they're two completely different situations. don't think it changes the fact the argument is shit in both cases.

idk. This is the United States where "socialist" is used exclusively as a political slur and this is someone who is openly more radical than any social democrat. So I don't think it's "delusional" at all to think it's kind of an interesting development or to say "well that is good i guess".

At the same time, it's a city council seat and I don't see how we can capitalize on this or anything.

The Feral Underclass

16th November 2013, 19:34

What is the long term strategy of getting Sawant (or others for that matter) elected to the city council/office?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

16th November 2013, 21:36

The people arguing that Sawant is a "liberal" or "social democrat" in "sheeps clothing" seem to be arguing with a strawwoman. Has she actually argued that bringing in a $15 minimum wage is "socialism"? I haven't been following the race but she doesn't make any claims to be bringing socialist policies into practice but merely alleviating the problems of the working class and helping to organize them.

So many leftists on the forum get angered when some conservative tries to cut minimum wage, but when some leftist tries to raise the minimum wage they get just as angry about it not being "real socialism". Yeah it's not real socialism, they are right, but does that make it worthless as a struggle? Socialist revolutions can't happen overnight, and it's not a bad thing in the mean time that workers not starve or be able to afford even modest housing. Participating in electoral politics didn't make Rosa Luxemborg unwilling to criticize Bernstein, or make her unwilling to lead an (ultimately unsuccessful) armed uprising. Electoral politics and the long term goal of mass revolution are not mutually exclusive, though the Bernsteins on the right and some of the more perfectionist Marxists on the Left disagree. It seems the REAL problem is giving up on revolution once some level of political acceptance has been attained as the right wing of the SPD did in 1914. But not every SPD member who had previously participated in electoral politics approved of that course of action, as in the aforementioned Mrs Luxemborg.

Also Mrs Sawant is working class not "petit bourgeois" as some doofus previously said. Unless people who teach econ part time at community colleges are "small businesspeople". Really I wish people would stop abusing the category of "petit bourgeois" by using it to refer to any worker who uses their brain, not their body.

What is the long term strategy of getting Sawant (or others for that matter) elected to the city council/office?

Well, there are some useful struggles that city council members can participate in directly, such as issues of housing equality. It's also the only thing aside from union councils that are practically speaking within the grasp of a bunch of occupy protesters and a tiny leftist third party.

Five Year Plan

16th November 2013, 21:41

A glorious day indeed. The petty-bourgeois Sawant can now teach from a seat of POWER, to the proletariat brainless dolts. She will awaken class consciousness by winning election after election. Maybe, someday, we will have 2 SOCIALIST COUNCIL MEMBERS!!!

If we're really ambitious, we can hope to have a very large bourgeois workers' party geared toward winning elections on the basis of minimal reforms. It would be like the SPD, and will collapse like a house of cards, clearing a path for fascism, the second a revolutionary situation appears.

This is certainly a promising first step.

I would just note that The Anarchist Tension did not receive an answer to his question. It's actually a question I've asked a number of times in other threads, and have yet to receive any answer to.

Five Year Plan

16th November 2013, 21:49

Well, there are some useful struggles that city council members can participate in directly, such as issues of housing equality.

Wouldn't this same logic lead us to vote for progressive Democrats in city council elections?

I was purposely not posting in this thread, since I was finding it ammusing, but I felt like that was a good question. In concrete terms, relating to the situation in Seattle/Minieapolis and without relying on sloganeering or vague formulations, what should have been done differently? Keep in mind this question isnt simply about running a candidate, but also all of the ground work and resulting links made with the working class, which comprise the totality of the campaign. As a CWI member who took part in one of the campaigns in question, that is certainly something I'd be interested in seeing. And I mean that genueinly, for purposes of self reflection and for the organizing work I hope to accomplish in Canada.

You must not have been paying close attention to other threads. One of the main criticisms made against Sawant is that she could have (and should have) done things differently by tying her agitation for immediate reforms with an argument about how those struggles for reforms point to the need for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Instead, no talk of revolution. Why upset voters with the truth if it will cost a city council seat in the bourgeois state?

ckaihatsu

16th November 2013, 22:10

So many leftists on the forum get angered when some conservative tries to cut minimum wage, but when some leftist tries to raise the minimum wage they get just as angry about it not being "real socialism". Yeah it's not real socialism, they are right, but does that make it worthless as a struggle?

The term for this is 'ultra-leftism'.

Sea

16th November 2013, 22:11

Time to reboot the second international?

Let me know when the CIA stages a coup against Seattlegrad. Until then, I doubt Sawant will do much to "expose the system from within" like a good Leninist.

ckaihatsu

16th November 2013, 22:18

The Feral Underclass

16th November 2013, 23:01

I would just note that The Anarchist Tension did not receive an answer to his question. It's actually a question I've asked a number of times in other threads, and have yet to receive any answer to.

It's almost as if they don't have a long term strategy.

Five Year Plan

16th November 2013, 23:04

This is hair-splitting.

SA's position (http://www.socialistalternative.org/about/) is *implicitly* revolutionary -- even if all revolutionary agitation and phrasing were removed -- because the reality of those radical reforms being implemented would be *tantamount* to revolution.

I am not sure if this is serious or of it's just trolling, but minimal reforms by their very nature don't challenge bourgeois hegemony. This is why bourgeois parties are capable of implementing them and sometimes even desire to do so.

To the extent that Sawant is issuing demands that shade away from the minimal, which a $15 per hour mimimum wage is arguably doing, she is talking about them as immediately actionable on the basis of her and candidates like her being elected, thereby propping up illusions in electoralism. A revolutionary would talk about these demands as realizable only through a broader process of workers' struggle against bourgeois politics and parties, and would only present them as actionable in a period when a mass movement around such a demand, and similar demands, is more developed. Failing to do that de facto transforms the demand into a negotiating tool for the labor bureaucracy (which is already advancing the very same slogan) to strengthen its own position in its haggling with the bourgeoisie.

Geiseric

16th November 2013, 23:11

obama set the bar pretty low for socialists in elected office, so im not expect too much...

Umm Obama never claimed to be a socialist. He is a staunch Neo liberal. Of course some people are going to want to sound more radical than other people by crying reformism, but the 15$ per hour campaign is a lot more practical than what any of the many ultra left organizations, such as the sparts and PSL, are doing.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

17th November 2013, 00:11

The best that could be hoped for is she would use her position as a platform for advocating actual socialism.

KurtFF8

17th November 2013, 00:55

yeah, of course they're two completely different situations. don't think it changes the fact the argument is shit in both cases.

regardless, i posted that not as a direct comparison, but to highlight the levels of delusion some on here operate under.

How exactly does it highlight that "delusion" and what is that delusion exactly?

So far all I've seen are strawman arguments and petty jabs using easy terms "oh this shows that X person is just a social democrat!"

Brotto RÃ¼hle

17th November 2013, 01:11

Umm Obama never claimed to be a socialist. He is a staunch Neo liberal. Of course some people are going to want to sound more radical than other people by crying reformism, but the 15$ per hour campaign is a lot more practical than what any of the many ultra left organizations, such as the sparts and PSL, are doing.

DURRRRRRRRR.

Uh, I think he's referring to the huge amount of dumbasses who think he was a socialist...cause..you know...Obamacare and FOX news.

Os Cangaceiros

17th November 2013, 01:13

You know when a group like the PSL is referred to as "ultra left" that the term has lost all meaning.

d3crypt

17th November 2013, 01:42

You know when a group like the PSL is referred to as "ultra left" that the term has lost all meaning.

Anyone who thinks the PSL is ultraleft is a fool.

Two Buck Chuck

17th November 2013, 01:53

This is hair-splitting.

SA's position is *implicitly* revolutionary --

Living wages, union jobs, healthcare, public education, looks like a run of the mill social democratic platform.

even if all revolutionary agitation and phrasing were removed -- because the reality of those radical reforms being implemented would be *tantamount* to revolution.

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on this forum, honestly, this even tops those ridiculous unreadable charts you make.

RadioRaheem84

17th November 2013, 02:26

I don't think its silly what ckaihatsu said. The playing field has been so tilted to the right that gains like those would be seen as radical and to the bourgeoise would be seen as "revolutionary". Heck Hugo Chavez was a run of the mill old school soc dem but was labeled as a Bolshevist by the media.

Here leftists made some gains. We won an election in a country that is so reactionary that I'm surprised the media isn't flipping the fuck out thinking this could start a trend.

Yet here we are shooting it down as a fluke. Well Ms. Sawant seems serious is her proposals and she might actually implement some of her ideas. We shall see. For now the amount of negative behavior over this astounds me. To a guy who's been pessimistic about the US coming around at all, this victory is a breath of fresh air.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 02:50

Living wages, union jobs, healthcare, public education, looks like a run of the mill social democratic platform.

hahahahahahahaha

Brotto RÃ¼hle

17th November 2013, 02:52

hahahahahahahaha

Hopefully you're laughing in agreement, otherwise you're going to turn out to be a large disappointment.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 03:05

Hopefully you're laughing in agreement, otherwise you're going to turn out to be a large disappointment.

Nah I'm laughing because anyone who pays attention to American politics knows that the mainstream democrats with the exception of a handful of "progressive" have nothing to do with mentioned in that post except maybe healthcare, with "Obamacare" and all that. And even if the Democrats did even as much as pay lip service to "union jobs, living wages, and public schools"then that doesn't mean that revolutionary socialists are somehow not revolutionary socialists because they're fighting for reforms or to protect the gains we already have.

I think people going on about how "oh she isn't a real socialist/she's a social democrat/just a progressive democrat" are playing a really stupid game where people are only genuine communists as long as they keep themselves totally irrelevant.

That isn't to say that Kshama Sawant and SAlt are beyond criticism or that this is great news or an earth shattering gain or something. We should keep things in perspective and actually think about what means for us. I think TAT is asking the right question when he says "What's the long term strategy?"

At best this could be a morale boost or and spur some interest in SAlt or something but I don't have any faith in them to know what to do with it even if that was true.

Red Commissar

17th November 2013, 04:53

I don't live in Seattle so can someone else tell me how the city council functions over there? Say how the council would determine policy and implement it, the mayor's relationship to them, how much power they have relative to the mayor, and how much could she do from her seat?

I'm pretty surprised she managed to unseat an incumbent democrat which is a difficult feat to do, especially since I would imagine Seattle proper is a safe Democratic stronghold.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

17th November 2013, 04:59

Wouldn't this same logic lead us to vote for progressive Democrats in city council elections?

Progressive Democrats support the Capitalist system and want to reform it to make it "work for everyone". Hopefully, a real socialist candidate opposes the Capitalist system and would only be reforming it to make it less unbearable until we can overthrow it. As evidence of this, there's the fact that democrats only came out in Seattle for a $15 minimum wage when there was a big movement for it forcing them to take a more radical stance, while Sawant (from what I understand) was pushing it earlier. The Democrats are more wedded to the local business interests and so would not come out for such a minimum wage hike unless there was serious electoral pressure on them to do so. It's not because $15 is a "socialist objective" - its not and I hope (and imagine) that Mrs Sawant knows the difference on some level - but because workers can organize now to make their conditions better.

People have legitimate criticisms of electoral strategies and people should be cautious in how they are employed, but I don't think it's a reason to disavow electoral politics altogether

Alan OldStudent

17th November 2013, 05:35

If one goes to the "About" page of Socialist Alternative (http://www.socialistalternative.org/about/), one will find this:

We believe the Republicans and Democrats are both parties of big business, and we are campaigning to build an independent, alternative party of workers and young people to fight for the interests of the millions, not the millionaires.

We see the global capitalist system as the root cause of the economic crisis, poverty, discrimination, war, and environmental destruction. As capitalism moves deeper into crisis, a new generation of workers and youth must join together to take the top 500 corporations into public ownership under democratic control to end the ruling elites' global competition for profits and power.Maybe one of the more brilliant "left" theoreticians here can explain to me, in plain and simple language that does not seem hopelessly Talmudic, pedantic to the point of obscurantism, utterly sectarian, or even just plain daft, why this statement is reformist!!

How does this statement sow illusions in capitalism? Don't these words advocate a revolutionary reconstruction of the fundamental economic basis of our society? Doesn't that statement call for the rule of the millionaire class with the rule of laboring majority?

That's not to say that I agree with every aspect of SA's strategy and tactics enough to want to join their group, but to say that their guiding principle is reformism is cranky hogwash! They have done a service for the cause of socialism in running this campaign, which they did skillfully. My hat's off to them.

Regards,

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

Danielle Ni Dhighe

17th November 2013, 05:55

Well, taking "the top 500 corporations into public ownership under democratic control" is hardly calling for the overthrow of the capitalist system and capitalist relations.

Art Vandelay

17th November 2013, 06:18

Well, taking "the top 500 corporations into public ownership under democratic control" is hardly calling for the overthrow of the capitalist system and capitalist relations.

The point of it, is that it is a transitional demand. When taken in conjunction with the rest of the CWI's program, it necessarily leads to the 'overthrow of the capitalist system and capitalist relations.' 'All power to the soviets' was not a explicitly revolutionary slogan or demand, but what it was, was a demand that when taken to its logical conclusion, lead to revolution.

e: I'm also not sure of the exact statements on the U.S. website, all I know is that I was personally the one who got the term 'socialist transformation of society' included in the Canadian sections website. Now criticize that all you want, but I think when taken in conjunction with the rest of our program, its quite clear what it means. On top of that, all I can say is based on my experience on the ground in Minneapolis, as well as my work here, is that we never shy away from the fact that we are an anti-capitalist organization. I mean even in mini, our party was literally just as publicized by this, as 'ty moore' was. I personally prefer to use the term 'revolutionary party' when speaking to people, because I certainly don't like to shy away from the term, but regardless alot of the criticism put forth in this thread has been flippant and based on strawmen. I also think TAT's question deserves to be answered, I hope other more knowledgeable CWI members can perhaps answer it better, since I've been a member for under a year, but if not I will attempt to shed whatever light I can.

Alan OldStudent

17th November 2013, 06:49

Well, taking "the top 500 corporations into public ownership under democratic control" is hardly calling for the overthrow of the capitalist system and capitalist relations.

Context, comrade, context.

These words precede the phrase you quote:
"We see the global capitalist system as the root cause of the economic crisis, poverty, discrimination, war, and environmental destruction. As capitalism moves deeper into crisis, a new generation of workers and youth must join together to take ....(emphasis added)
Followed by:

....the top 500 corporations into public ownership under democratic control.

You don't see that as calling for the overthrow of the capitalist system and capitalist relations??? Really???

Why in heaven's name not? Do you seriously believe this a prescription for saving capitalism?

http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/Sheesh1.png

Regards,

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

reb

17th November 2013, 09:25

Sawant is good for exposing how full of shit the left is and how detached some people are from actual working class struggles.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

17th November 2013, 09:58

The point of it, is that it is a transitional demand.
I just don't see where they're explicitly calling for anything further than that. Could you point out where they do (if they do)?

Danielle Ni Dhighe

17th November 2013, 10:02

You don't see that as calling for the overthrow of the capitalist system and capitalist relations??? Really???
No, I don't. I see a recognition that capitalism is the problem, but public ownership of a certain number of corporations doesn't abolish the capitalist mode of production.

argeiphontes

17th November 2013, 10:51

No, I don't. I see a recognition that capitalism is the problem, but public ownership of a certain number of corporations doesn't abolish the capitalist mode of production.

Yeah. Capitalism has these features:

1. Wage labor.
2. Appropriation of surplus labor by an exploiting class.
3. Private ownership of the means of production.
4. Market allocation of goods and investment.

Nationalizing some or even all companies only removes #3. SAlt's position also involves democratic control of banks and investment, so #4 is partially dealt with. #2 is in dispute depending on what you believe the role of the state should be.

(That being said, it can be a question of rhetoric or what the group believes about proletarian struggle, I suppose.)

Tim Cornelis

17th November 2013, 13:36

Yeah. Capitalism has these features:

1. Wage labor.
2. Appropriation of surplus labor by an exploiting class.
3. Private ownership of the means of production.
4. Market allocation of goods and investment.

Nationalizing some or even all companies only removes #3. SAlt's position also involves democratic control of banks and investment, so #4 is partially dealt with. #2 is in dispute depending on what you believe the role of the state should be.

(That being said, it can be a question of rhetoric or what the group believes about proletarian struggle, I suppose.)

They don't harbour the illusion, I don't think, that they could get away with just socialising some major corporations. The ruling class wouldn't tolerate it, and would fight it nail and tooth. This would accelerate social conflict and eventuate in the complete takeover of productive resources by working people. Personally, I don't think it's the best of slogans.

Diirez

17th November 2013, 14:14

This is a serious question, so I expect a serious response. To those who are congratulating this as some kind of victory: What do you think is going to happen now? In other words, what is the long term strategy of being elected to the city council?
I don't think much will happen with just one city council member being elected. Seattle might possibly get a $15 minimum wage increase, (despite the fact that if you work 40 hours a week at $15 an hour, you still are below the poverty line) but not much will change. It is a right step in the direction because it shows that 100% of America isn't as scared at Socialism as the Right tries to claim. Maybe we'll get a senator elected and it will start a chain of events, who knows.

But one thing is for sure, she might inspire other Socialists to go out and run for political positions.

The Feral Underclass

17th November 2013, 14:31

I don't think much will happen with just one city council member being elected. Seattle might possibly get a $15 minimum wage increase, (despite the fact that if you work 40 hours a week at $15 an hour, you still are below the poverty line) but not much will change. It is a right step in the direction because it shows that 100% of America isn't as scared at Socialism as the Right tries to claim. Maybe we'll get a senator elected and it will start a chain of events, who knows.

But one thing is for sure, she might inspire other Socialists to go out and run for political positions.

So your long term strategy is to get a Senator elected?

Brotto RÃ¼hle

17th November 2013, 14:44

So your long term strategy is to get a Senator elected?

For someone who thinks $15 an hour means socialism, that's all you should really expect.

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 14:50

For someone who thinks $15 an hour means socialism, that's all you should really expect.

Fixed. This has seriously been bothering me.

edit: wtf did no one on the next page listen?

Taters

17th November 2013, 15:14

For someone who thinks $15 an hour means socialism, that's all you should really expect.

Don't be disingenuous, pal. I'm not much for SAlt's politics myself, but I think they know that's not socialism. It's some sorta "transitional demand" or something.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

17th November 2013, 15:18

Don't be disingenuous, pal. I'm not much for SAlt's politics myself, but I think they know that's not socialism. It's some sorta "transitional demand" or something.

I thought transitional demands were supposed to be things that were too much to happen in capitalism? Shit, 15$ an hour is nothing.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 15:19

For someone who thinks $15 an hour means socialism

who thinks this

EDIT: its not a "transitional demand". y'all know that communists fight/fought for reforms right

Per Levy

17th November 2013, 15:24

Maybe one of the more brilliant "left" theoreticians here can explain to me, in plain and simple language that does not seem hopelessly Talmudic, pedantic to the point of obscurantism, utterly sectarian, or even just plain daft, why this statement is reformist!!

because it goes to the sentiment that not capitalism is evil but corporatism is, that small and middle buisness are ok only the big buisness are bad, that it is ok for small and middle buisness to exploit there workers, at 15$/h of course. not to mention that it calls the dems and reps as the partys of big buisness and not the partys of capitalism wich they are. wich again goes to the point that corporatism is the bad thing and not capitalism. if you need to "teach" the workers everything than at least call things by its name and dont obscure it with liberal rethoric.

i also like that you put left in airquotes, since many people on here actually dont see themselfs as leftists anyway.

also, here in germany, our very reformist social democratic party "die linke" has pretty much the exact same positions and yet each time they are somewhat in power they do nothing about it. reformism at its best.

but i find it interesting that the most important question of this thread even after many days was still not answered by the supporters of sawant:

This is a serious question, so I expect a serious response. To those who are congratulating this as some kind of victory: What do you think is going to happen now? In other words, what is the long term strategy of being elected to the city council?

and i am also waiting for an answer to that question.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 15:29

because it goes to the sentiment that not capitalism is evil but corporatism is, that small and middle buisness are ok only the big buisness are bad, that it is ok for small and middle buisness to exploit there workers

yo i hate that everyone in here is so wrong that i actually have to defend a dumb shitty party like SAlt but this is not what they believe and Kshama Sawant herself has talked about how the problem is "capitalism itself".

Y'all are trying to make it sound like they're the Greens or some kinda progressive democrats but they are just actual boring trotskyists.

Taters

17th November 2013, 15:36

I thought transitional demands were supposed to be things that were too much to happen in capitalism? Shit, 15$ an hour is nothing.

shit, you're right. not a transitional demand

Per Levy

17th November 2013, 15:56

who thinks this

the kind of people who think that this is a "great victory for socialism" and that sawant will bring us "closer to socialist change".

Y'all are trying to make it sound like they're the Greens or some kinda progressive democrats but they are just actual boring trotskyists.

from what i read from SAlt they sound exactly like our main social-dem party, thats why i see them as that, social-dems. and yes that social-dem party has "communists" and trots in them, like the SAlts sister party "sozialistische alternative".

Sasha

17th November 2013, 15:57

yo i hate that everyone in here is so wrong that i actually have to defend a dumb shitty party like SAlt but this is not what they believe and Kshama Sawant herself has talked about how the problem is "capitalism itself".

Y'all are trying to make it sound like they're the Greens or some kinda progressive democrats but they are just actual boring trotskyists.

And even if she just turns out a radical social-dem, their reformist politics are still better than 99% of the "revolutiony" left. Rather a green in my kitchen than a Stalinist in my bed...

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 16:08

If one goes to the "About" page of Socialist Alternative (http://www.socialistalternative.org/about/), one will find this:

Maybe one of the more brilliant "left" theoreticians here can explain to me, in plain and simple language that does not seem hopelessly Talmudic, pedantic to the point of obscurantism, utterly sectarian, or even just plain daft, why this statement is reformist!!

How does this statement sow illusions in capitalism? Don't these words advocate a revolutionary reconstruction of the fundamental economic basis of our society? Doesn't that statement call for the rule of the millionaire class with the rule of laboring majority?

That's not to say that I agree with every aspect of SA's strategy and tactics enough to want to join their group, but to say that their guiding principle is reformism is cranky hogwash! They have done a service for the cause of socialism in running this campaign, which they did skillfully. My hat's off to them.

Regards,

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

Wtf. I hate this. So fucking wrong.

We believe the Republicans and Democrats are both parties of big business, and we are campaigning to build an independent, alternative party of workers and young people to fight for the interests of the millions, not the millionaires.
1. Big Business rhetoric. Yes, tis the "big bourgeoisie" who are at fault, yes, definitely just them. Why even mention the petty-bourgeois?
I mean, seriously, this just goes back to the other thread. this kinda rhetoric doesn't end the verdict on the "small business owners"
2. Oooh "Independent." What the fuck does that even mean "independent"? Its just American populism. Well they certainly are "independent" in the sense they are independent of the proletariat.
3. Fight for the interests of millions, not millionaires. Firstly, what does SAlt think these interests are? Secondly, its obviously focusing on the American population, which some will say I am stretching this, but I genuinely think this is an example of abandoning internationalism. Thirdly, again, not all the bourgeoisie are millionaires.
4. This sounds like a typical run of the mill social democrat platform.

We see the global capitalist system as the root cause of the economic crisis, poverty, discrimination, war, and environmental destruction. As capitalism moves deeper into crisis, a new generation of workers and youth must join together to take the top 500 corporations into public ownership under democratic control to end the ruling elites' global competition for profits and power. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
omfg, I genuinely lol'd.

Way to focus on "corporations" and ignore small businesses. And just the top five hundred? Take into public ownership - so nationalize? PROtip: Nationalization =/= Socialism. I shoudn't even need to explain this.
What the fuck does "democratic control" even mean?

This is all so liberal. lol @ SAlt and those who think this is what a workers party advocates.

Per Levy

17th November 2013, 16:18

And even if she just turns out a radical social-dem, their reformist politics are still better than 99% of the "revolutiony" left. Rather a green in my kitchen than a Stalinist in my bed...

really psycho? are your greens so allright? the last time our greens were in power on a national level they helped to slash the welfare state, lowered taxes for the rich while putting more pressure on the working and unemployed people. helped the secret services to get ore power and supported the first official wars of germany after ww2. not to mention that many of the most powerful greens nowadays were stalinists and maoists when they were young.

17th November 2013, 16:18

Remus, if you think you're going to win the argument by being an unbelievable dick... Then you're going to have a bad time.

You just come over as a sad yeller from the sidelines.

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 16:23

Remus, if you think you're going to win the argument by being an unbelievable dick... Then you're going to have a bad time.

You just come over as a sad yeller from the sidelines.
I dont think anyone will "win" this argument one way or the other. SAlters will be SAlters, commies will be commies, liberals will be liberals, etc. No "argument" or debate will solve anything.
I just write my reaction out.

And, if I am a sad yeller, what exactly are you then Q? Someone who gets upset about a "sad yeller" on the internet?

ITT: We act like saying fuck is all you need to be an unbelievable dick, and not passive aggressive smugness.

Sasha

17th November 2013, 16:52

really psycho? are your greens so allright? the last time our greens were in power on a national level they helped to slash the welfare state, lowered taxes for the rich while putting more pressure on the working and unemployed people. helped the secret services to get ore power and supported the first official wars of germany after ww2. not to mention that many of the most powerful greens nowadays were stalinists and maoists when they were young.

No disagreement there, yet still rather a slashed welfare state and increased spying than breadlines and summery executions.
The sheer nerve of stalinoids to always complain about union busting and other attacks on worker and human rights...

17th November 2013, 16:52

I dont think anyone will "win" this argument one way or the other. SAlters will be SAlters, commies will be commies, liberals will be liberals, etc. No "argument" or debate will solve anything.
I just write my reaction out.
Why are you even on this forum then?

If you think all of this is just useless, then I suppose your posts qualify as trolling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29), in which case there is no room for you on Revleft.

You better think about your next steps now. If you have something political to say, disagree with SAlt or want to explain why your brand of communism is somehow better, then do it, that's what we're here for. If you're just going off a tangent for the sake of it, you're out.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 16:53

the kind of people who think that this is a "great victory for socialism" and that sawant will bring us "closer to socialist change".

Where are those people in this thread? And the people who think this is a "great victory" are just wrong -- not necessarily reformists.

from what i read from SAlt they sound exactly like our main social-dem party, thats why i see them as that, social-dems. and yes that social-dem party has "communists" and trots in them, like the SAlts sister party "sozialistische alternative".Er, and that's a Trotskyist party, and both SAlts are affiliated with the CWI. I dunno if there's social democrats within the ranks but the party itself says flat out that they don't think reforms alone are enough to end capitalism and bring about socialism.

Their rhetoric def. leaves something to be desired to say the least, but I think that's because they're trying (too) hard to speak the language of the young working class.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 16:56

Wanna make it clear that I think SAlt has abysmal politics but saying "yo they are soc dems/greens/little more than progressive democrats" is far off base.

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 17:00

Why are you even on this forum then?

If you think all of this is just useless, then I suppose your posts qualify as trolling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29), in which case there is no room for you on Revleft.

You better think about your next steps now. If you have something political to say, disagree with SAlt or want to explain why your brand of communism is somehow better, then do it, that's what we're here for. If you're just going off a tangent for the sake of it, you're out.
Umm Q, I did raise political points, in all actuality. I just intermingled them with astonishment that a so-called "revolutionary" website is just so chill with reformism. I think I am allowed to do that, right? I am allowed to call people out on there reformism? I did bring up points, didn't I?
I mean, if you seriously think me raising valid points is "trolling" because you don't agree with the points I make, why are you a mod?
I mean, none of us debate fascists, right? So, why do we hold debate up as a principle then?
Why am I on this forum? Because its a great way to learn history, facts, theory etc. And that is what is "important." Not this "debate" nonsense, but to see how theory, as it is applied, has worked out. Look at the Bordiga quote in my singature. I fully believe that. So, I better learn how political tactics have worked, and how they have not worked. I better have a better understanding of theory, of directions of theorists. And, using this vague information (much like a reference point) I can find theoretical authors and see how well their theory actually was and is. That is how I have come to my political views, not by going to "Stalin - good or bad" threads.
Also; debating has one good aspect to it, and that is how much theory one has attained and how confident one is in it. It does not follow that I believe debates will actually work.

edit: Seriously, a wikipedia article on trolling?

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 17:03

I did raise political points, in all actuality. I just intermingled them with astonishment that a so-called "revolutionary" website is just so chill with reformism

Is advocating for any reform at any point ever "reformism"?

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 17:05

Is advocating for any reform at any point ever "reformism"?
The way that SAlt presents its political platform appears to make it look as if these measures are an end in and of themselves.
edit: They needs to be clear that these are means to an end, that the struggle needs to continue to revolution. I don't get that vibe from SAlt.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 17:08

The way that SAlt presents its political platform appears to make it look as if these measures are an end in and of themselves.

How should it be presented? Because they've said they don't think that reforms alone can get rid of capitalism. And have any of you so much as looked at their website? How many social democratic organizations have articles on Marxism and works by Lenin and Trotsky under their "theory and publications" tab?

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

17th November 2013, 17:11

No disagreement there, yet still rather a slashed welfare state and increased spying than breadlines and summery executions.
The sheer nerve of stalinoids to always complain about union busting and other attacks on worker and human rights...

Didn't know the Stalinists were a force to be reckoned with today? Is this Russia in the 1920's?

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 17:13

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 17:16

Hugo Chavez claimed to be following the line of Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, and Lenin, and said that his reforms were not enough to end capitalism. Chavez claimed to be a "Revolutionary" and a "Trotksyist." Does that make him stop being a social democrat?

He wasn't a social democrat, though. I think he was an actual reformist in that he thought you could "reform capitalism away". And yeah, namedropping doesn't make one a Trotskyist but the CWI's entire strategy and theoretical and political basis is in Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.

They're still wrong, but they aren't social democrats or reformists.

This entire campaign has had shit like "universal healthcare is more cost effectve" riddled throughout it.So what? Fighting for immediate goals makes one a reformist automatically?

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 17:19

So what?
Thats keeping in with the current ideological framework. Its like people who argue "cutting the military spending will reduce the budget"

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 17:21

Thats keeping in with the current ideological framework. Its like people who argue "cutting the military spending will reduce the budget"

So we shouldn't fight for immediate goals or reforms? It's revolution now or nothing?

Sasha

17th November 2013, 17:26

Didn't know the Stalinists were a force to be reckoned with today? Is this Russia in the 1920's?

Nope, neither are the rest of the revolutionary left, and as long as we keep on spending our time on *****ing on people offering reforms while we offer nothing instead that's not going to change.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

17th November 2013, 17:32

Nope, neither are the rest of the revolutionary left, and as long as we keep on spending our time on *****ing on people offering reforms while we offer nothing instead that's not going to change.

Then why are you so keen on the scummy greens? Since there's no danger of the Stalinists coming like it's the 30's purges, your excuse for preferring the greens make no sense. The choice isn't between the greens and some Stalinists.

Art Vandelay

17th November 2013, 17:43

I thought transitional demands were supposed to be things that were too much to happen in capitalism? Shit, 15$ an hour is nothing.

Perhaps if you spent your time on this forum doing more then shit slinging, you'd know that the Transitional Program (the basis for post-Trotsky Trotskyism, for all intents and purposes), was a program which contained minimum demands, transitional demands, and the maximum demand of socialist revolution. So you're right 15$/hr isn't a transitional demand, no one thinks it is, no one in SA pretends as such (that was one of my first questions upon arriving in Minneapolis). Do I have issues with some of the platform, absolutely, but all we see here, is you engaging in your usual level of discourse, while criticizing SA, when its quite clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 17:46

Perhaps if you spent your time on this forum doing more then shit slinging, you'd know that the Transitional Program (the basis for post-Trotsky Trotskyism, for all intents and purposes), was a program which contained minimum demands, transitional demands, and the maximum demand of socialist revolution. So you're right 15$/hr isn't a transitional demand, no one thinks it is, no one in SA pretends as such (that was one of my first questions upon arriving in Minneapolis). Do I have issues with some of the platform, absolutely, but all we see here, is you engaging in your usual level of discourse, while criticizing SA, when its quite clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
He was obviously replying to Taters, who said it was a transitional demand.

Sasha

17th November 2013, 17:54

Then why are you so keen on the scummy greens? Since there's no danger of the Stalinists coming like it's the 30's purges, your excuse for preferring the greens make no sense. The choice isn't between the greens and some Stalinists.

I'm not keen on them, I just think they are the better pieces of feces in a sea of shit, I still prefer old school sock-dems are even better pieces of dung and I think almost all of the self styled "revolutionary" left is even worse...

Queen Mab

17th November 2013, 17:57

So we shouldn't fight for immediate goals or reforms? It's revolution now or nothing?

If you want to fight for reforms within the ideological and institutional framework of capitalism, you should be voting for Obama.

Kshama went on MSNBC and was asked this: why not vote Democrat if you want all these reforms? She didn't have an answer.

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 17:59

"Old School sock-dems" killed rosa luxemburg....

Loony Le Fist

17th November 2013, 18:07

If there is any way that the conversation can be moved to the left in the public sphere, we should take the opportunity. Whether you consider Sawant a legitimate leftist or not, it is a chance to move the conversation in our direction. While it's easy to become cynical in light of situation, we cannot lose hope. That would be playing right into the hand of the reactionaries.

Art Vandelay

17th November 2013, 18:07

He was obviously replying to Taters, who said it was a transitional demand.

I think it is more than obvious what he was doing:

For someone who thinks $15 an hour means socialism, that's all you should really expect.

Don't be disingenuous, pal. I'm not much for SAlt's politics myself, but I think they know that's not socialism. It's some sorta "transitional demand" or something.

I thought transitional demands were supposed to be things that were too much to happen in capitalism? Shit, 15$ an hour is nothing.

First he puts forth the fabrication that anyone in the CWI (or even here for that matter), thinks 15$ an hour equals socialism. Since we all know that socialism cannot have wage labor, we all know this is bullshit. So what we see here, is him purposely putting forth a fabrication, in order to create more nonsense in this thread. Next Taters incorrectly points out that the call for 15/hr is a transitional demand, which S&D gives the proper definition for. He could have explained the tp, explained that minimum demands are also apart of it and pointed out that if SA calls the 15/hr a transitional demand, they're wrong. Instead he responded with his usual devoid of content nonsense. You're right, it is obvious he was responding to Taters and when taken in conjunction with his posts of late, its clear its trolling, just like you. And its consistently the same people, who regurgitate the same rhetoric in every thread (in a rather unlettered and antagonistic fashion), which derails any worthwhile discussion.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 18:10

If you want to fight for reforms within the ideological and institutional framework of capitalism, you should be voting for Obama.

I don't want that as an end to itself. I think that fighting for reforms are a good way to build a movement, though. What should we do, otherwise? this is a serious and not rhetorical question btw

Kshama went on MSNBC and was asked this: why not vote Democrat if you want all these reforms? She didn't have an answer.Because the Democrats won't enact these reforms and there is no reason to believe they will, for starters. The Democrats also aren't a revolutionary socialist party and those reforms aren't a part of a larger strategy to build a movement/party to challenge capitalism

Queen Mab

17th November 2013, 18:27

Because the Democrats won't enact these reforms and there is no reason to believe they will.

The Democrats have enacted plenty of reforms in the past. The New Deal, the Great Society, even Obamacare recently. So who knows? Democrats introduced the minimum wage, why is it impossible for them to raise it?

Whereas Socialist Alternative has no power to implement anything. And if you do vote for SA (unfortunate acronym), you're splitting the vote of those in favour of reforms and the Republicans win and you end up with nothing.

Working people aren't dumb sheep, they know this. So to try and trick them into socialism through social democratic reforms is a complete dead end. If they like a $15 minimum wage they will support Obama. Which they do!

Brotto RÃ¼hle

17th November 2013, 18:27

Perhaps if you spent your time on this forum doing more then shit slinging, you'd know that the Transitional Program (the basis for post-Trotsky Trotskyism, for all intents and purposes), was a program which contained minimum demands, transitional demands, and the maximum demand of socialist revolution. Whoa there, tough guy. If you spent less time being politically bankrupt, and actually gained a comprehension of Marx's critique of Political Economy, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So you're right 15$/hr isn't a transitional demand, no one thinks it is, no one in SA pretends as such (that was one of my first questions upon arriving in Minneapolis). Do I have issues with some of the platform, absolutely, but all we see here, is you engaging in your usual level of discourse, while criticizing SA, when its quite clear you have no idea what you are talking about.I was responding to someone who claimed that $15 an hour was a transitional demand. Why don't you read before you go on the offensive there skippy.

Queen Mab

17th November 2013, 18:33

Wait, she's not even standing on transitional demands? :laugh:

What on earth is the point then? Why are Trotskyists defending this?

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 18:40

The Democrats have enacted plenty of reforms in the past. The New Deal, the Great Society, even Obamacare recently. So who knows? Democrats introduced the minimum wage, why is it impossible for them to raise it?

Because the largest and most fundamental reforms weren't given to us by politicians out of the kindness of the Democrats' hearts. And what the democrats did under FDR when there was an actual working class movement that people with power were afraid of doesn't have anything to do with what's happening now. Yeah, we got Obamacare but that was more for the insurance companies than working people, and beyond that, the Democrats have been just as eager to cut public education, welfare benefits, etc. etc. etc.

Working people aren't dumb sheep, they know this. So to try and trick them into socialism through social democratic reforms is a complete dead end. If they like a $15 minimum wage they will support Obama. Which they do!

I think most people vote Democrat because "welp, they're better than the Republicans on social issues at least?" I live in a pretty strongly Democratic city and that seems to be the general attitude -- no one thinks they're a party for working people.

And either way (sort of off topic for a second), if we shouldn't fight for reforms, then what should we do? How do we build the movement? What is our strategy?

Brotto RÃ¼hle

17th November 2013, 18:43

Because the largest and most fundamental reforms weren't given to us by politicians out of the kindness of the Democrats' hearts. And what the democrats did under FDR when there was an actual working class movement that people with power were afraid of doesn't have anything to do with what's happening now. Yeah, we got Obamacare but that was more for the insurance companies than working people, and beyond that, the Democrats have been just as eager to cut public education, welfare benefits, etc. etc. etc.

I think most people vote Democrat because "welp, they're better than the Republicans on social issues at least?" I live in a pretty strongly Democratic city and that seems to be the general attitude -- no one thinks they're a party for working people.

And either way (sort of off topic for a second), if we shouldn't fight for reforms, then what should we do? How do we build the movement? What is our strategy?

I think the points to look at are:

- What reforms?
- How to fight for them?

The solutions we seem to get are:

- Higher minimum wage, of $15
- Vote for Sawant.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 18:47

I think the points to look at are:

- What reforms?
- How to fight for them?

The solutions we seem to get are:

- Higher minimum wage, of $15
- Vote for Sawant.

Yeah, like I said, I don't think SAlt has a good strategy here. Or any strategy.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

17th November 2013, 18:49

Yeah, like I said, I don't think SAlt has a good strategy here. Or any strategy.

I think, as well, it's disingenuous to claim that just because an organization claims it wants socialism, that it isn't social democratic.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

17th November 2013, 18:52

"Old School sock-dems" killed rosa luxemburg....

Rosa Luxemborg was also an old-school social democrat and a revolutionary marxist rolled into one. She's really the best example of how Marxist politics was not exclusive to electoral politics.

Hugo Chavez claimed to be following the line of Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, and Lenin, and said that his reforms were not enough to end capitalism. Chavez claimed to be a "Revolutionary" and a "Trotksyist." Does that make him stop being a social democrat?
This entire campaign has had shit like "universal healthcare is more cost effectve" riddled throughout it.

Hugo Chavez ran in 1998 on "fixing capitalism" not on socialism and didn't become a "socialist" until the 2002 coup.

Also his movement was "social democrat" for materialist reasons, not the ideological positions of their charismatic leader - Chavez's party (for a number of reasons, some legitimate some out of political expediency and some out of political corruption) was beholden to a number of business interests. As far as I know Socialist Alternative is not politically beholden to a number of Capitalists.

Thats keeping in with the current ideological framework. Its like people who argue "cutting the military spending will reduce the budget"

Well, cutting military spending will reduce the portion of the budget spent on the military, and that's not a BAD thing. Working to reduce militarism within capitalism and working to overcome capitalism are not multually exclusive goals. In fact the issue that split Rosa Luxemborg from the Social Democrat party wasn't their refusal to try to overthrow Capitalism right that moment, but their willingness to fund and support a Capitalist war.

Opposing electoral politics on face value seems to me to be a method of fetishizing it as much as its adherents. Electoral politics is just one of many tools in a bourgeois society. Participating in it is no more a betrayal of revolutionary politics than is paying the Capitalist copy shop to print signs.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 18:55

I think, as well, it's disingenuous to claim that just because an organization claims it wants socialism, that it isn't social democratic.

Naw i think that's a dumb game to play. Just one big "no true scotsman". If someone's got shitty strategy just call it that instead of insisting they are secret social democrats even though they are all about trotsky.

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 19:00

secret social democrats even though they are all about trotsky.I think you are missing the point.
I really don't want to be told by a mod that I am trolling, but I think it would be best if we were all honest. Most people who are anti-kshama on this thread (subvert, me, reb, yuki, per levy, etc) regard trotskyists as social democrats.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 19:01

that's dumb, man.

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 19:04

that's dumb, man.
Not really much of a response, is it?
edit: don't call me "man"

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 19:08

Not really much of a response, is it?

What, am I gonna change your mind? :lol:

But for real there is definitely a difference between trots n soc-dems. both are fundamentally wrong, yeah, but c'mon.

ckaihatsu

17th November 2013, 19:15

One of the main criticisms made against Sawant is that she could have (and should have) done things differently by tying her agitation for immediate reforms with an argument about how those struggles for reforms point to the need for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Instead, no talk of revolution. Why upset voters with the truth if it will cost a city council seat in the bourgeois state?

This is hair-splitting.

SA's position (http://www.socialistalternative.org/about/) is *implicitly* revolutionary -- even if all revolutionary agitation and phrasing were removed -- because the reality of those radical reforms being implemented would be *tantamount* to revolution.

I am not sure if this is serious or of it's just trolling, but minimal reforms by their very nature don't challenge bourgeois hegemony. This is why bourgeois parties are capable of implementing them and sometimes even desire to do so.

To the extent that Sawant is issuing demands that shade away from the minimal, which a $15 per hour mimimum wage is arguably doing, she is talking about them as immediately actionable on the basis of her and candidates like her being elected, thereby propping up illusions in electoralism. A revolutionary would talk about these demands as realizable only through a broader process of workers' struggle against bourgeois politics and parties, and would only present them as actionable in a period when a mass movement around such a demand, and similar demands, is more developed. Failing to do that de facto transforms the demand into a negotiating tool for the labor bureaucracy (which is already advancing the very same slogan) to strengthen its own position in its haggling with the bourgeoisie.

No, not trolling.

Again -- to my point -- the SA political platform contains *radical reforms* that could only come from the revolutionary left. I've listed some pertinent excerpts below....

Yes -- to your point -- a $15/hour minimum wage is hardly revolutionary, but I think we should consider that as an entryist / electoral tactic.

I'll argue that you're being too glass-half-empty, or pessimistic, here, regarding the public *reception* of this electoral / entryist gain -- you think of it as 'rightifying' the far-left, due to its campaigning promise of a $15/hour minimum wage, while I prefer to see it as 'leftifying' the mainstream, *using* 'illusions in electoralism' to introduce more-revolutionary demands and bring about greater class consciousness, as with the SA platform.

Yes, your concern about trade union aristocracy co-optation is a valid one, but that may turn out to be the 'litmus test' -- will Sawant cave to such status-quo pressures, or will she maintain a politics of working class independence -- ?

For public ownership and democratic control of the major banks.

Take bankrupt and failing companies into public ownership and retool them for socially necessary green production.

Public ownership of the big energy companies.

Socialism and Internationalism

Capitalism produces poverty, inequality, environmental destruction and war. We need an international struggle against this system.

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.

---

Honorable mention:

Living wages, union jobs, healthcare, public education, looks like a run of the mill social democratic platform.

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on this forum, honestly, this even tops those ridiculous unreadable charts you make.

Cheap insults are easy -- see above for actual *substance*.

---

Yeah. Capitalism has these features:

1. Wage labor.
2. Appropriation of surplus labor by an exploiting class.
3. Private ownership of the means of production.
4. Market allocation of goods and investment.

Nationalizing some or even all companies only removes #3.

"Only" -- ??

The *practical* question for our politics and demands is whether the actual realization of such would be *enough* of a difference to allow the world's working class to gain true collective independence over their / our own lives -- I'll liken it to the historic escaping from the feudal lands to the towns, so-to-speak.

There would be a massive 'snowball effect' at that tipping point, because a global 99% that is no longer dependent on capital for its life and livelihood would then suddenly have a *lot* of free time on its hands with which to 'finish things off', revolution-wise.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

17th November 2013, 19:25

1. Big Business rhetoric. Yes, tis the "big bourgeoisie" who are at fault, yes, definitely just them. Why even mention the petty-bourgeois?
I mean, seriously, this just goes back to the other thread. this kinda rhetoric doesn't end the verdict on the "small business owners"
2. Oooh "Independent." What the fuck does that even mean "independent"? Its just American populism. Well they certainly are "independent" in the sense they are independent of the proletariat.
3. Fight for the interests of millions, not millionaires. Firstly, what does SAlt think these interests are? Secondly, its obviously focusing on the American population, which some will say I am stretching this, but I genuinely think this is an example of abandoning internationalism. Thirdly, again, not all the bourgeoisie are millionaires.
4. This sounds like a typical run of the mill social democrat platform.

I don't think that this is a "run of the mill social democrat platform" or really a "betrayal of internationalism" (Socialist Alternative is a part of the CWI, correct?) It might be rhetorically simplistic, but no major social democrat party in the world would pursue those kinds of ends today.

As for the issue of big business vs small business it seems fair to say that the political and economic power of small businesses is fairly negligible in 2013. Most small businesses themselves are dependent on big businesses by now anyhow. Why prioritize the workers seizing some insignificant family-owned coffee shop when most coffee shops out there and the entire coffee supply chain are run by the same few corporations? Not that I think small businesses should be left alone either but I can see why a party wouldn't make them the priority.

Way to focus on "corporations" and ignore small businesses. And just the top five hundred? Take into public ownership - so nationalize? PROtip: Nationalization =/= Socialism. I shoudn't even need to explain this.
What the fuck does "democratic control" even mean?

This is all so liberal. lol @ SAlt and those who think this is what a workers party advocates.

What kind of weirdo liberal would nationalize the largest corporations in their country? The only time "liberals" do that is in an economic crisis so that they can "save" those companies and resell them for a profit. I agree that nationalization =/= socialization that is true, but I think that's why they talk about making it "democratic". By "democratic" they obviously mean run by the workers and the community, not the bourgeoisie or faceless bureaucrats. Now perhaps that's still not "socialism" but the mechanisms are in place to build it.

You know, if you take over the major 500 corporations you take over most of the loans taken out by small businesses which is owned by the major banks, and probably much of the real estate that they are on. You also take over the entire supply chain that those small businesses are dependent on. Lastly, you give all employees for small businesses more lucrative opportunities elsewhere. What you do to big businesses has a huge ramification for small businesses.

I think the points to look at are:

- What reforms?
- How to fight for them?

The solutions we seem to get are:

- Higher minimum wage, of $15
- Vote for Sawant.

As far as I know, those were the demands being pushed by Seattle's proles.

She is also pushing for things like rent control too so it's unfair to say that a $15 minimum wage is the only demand they are pushing. No, those issues aren't "socialism" but they're reasonable issues for workers to organize around in current conditions and with a socialist revolution still a ways away.

RedHal

17th November 2013, 19:40

ultra lefts, the biggest voice on revleft, but the tiniest presence in the real world, who's strategy isn't working?

Two Buck Chuck

17th November 2013, 19:46

Brotto RÃ¼hle

17th November 2013, 19:46

ultra lefts, the biggest voice on revleft, but the tiniest presence in the real world, who's strategy isn't working?
Capitalists, small presence in revleft, hugest presence in the real world.

Alexios

17th November 2013, 19:47

ultra lefts, the biggest voice on revleft, but the tiniest presence in the real world, who's strategy isn't working?

The "ultra-left" has no strategy - they think that the working class is the only force that can achieve communism, rather than supporting some team of leftist nerds who think that it's their duty to educate the unwashed masses.

And if we're going to talk about "success" then I beg you to show me where your pals in Peru and India have achieved any 'successes' besides murdering innocent people and becoming drug dealers. :laugh:

reb

17th November 2013, 19:47

argeiphontes

17th November 2013, 19:48

Sasha

17th November 2013, 19:51

ultra lefts, the biggest voice on revleft, but the tiniest presence in the real world, who's strategy isn't working?

Ehm, I would say that ultra-lefts have the most tangible results to show in the first world. Ironically reformist results thrown to us after the issue based activism many ultra-lefts spend their time on but still more results than a mass party of 5 people discussing how many angels can dance on a Marx beard hair.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 19:57

The "ultra-left" has no strategy - they think that the working class is the only force that can achieve communism, rather than supporting some team of leftist nerds who think that it's their duty to educate the unwashed masses.

That's cool but the working class still needs a strategy. What should we do to take power?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

17th November 2013, 19:57

If Sawant was voted in to sit on a board of directors of some company, with the goal of raising wages and claiming to be socialist, then people would be laughing at her. Why then, are people not laughing in this instance?

State =/= Capital. Karl Liebknecht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Liebknecht) was elected into parliament prior to WW1 for the socdem party, but that didn't stop him from being a militant anticapitalist who campaigned against the war and was actually killed by the "social democrats" who had become institutionalized when he tried to lead a Communist revolt in Berlin.

Really I think you can't say that leftism is incompatible with electoral politics if you look at the fact that there are a number of leftwing politicians who got elected or who supported electoral politics then got killed for supporting some kind of working class uprising. The problem is that a number of leftists want to play the "no true scotsman" game and argue that anyone who ever tries to participate in electoral politics can't really be an authentic socialist.

I DO think it's reasonable to argue, based on past experience, that electoralism is a dead end road (I don't know if it's right, but it's certainly a reasonable argument), but I DON'T think you can say that Mrs Sawant is somehow less socialist once she decided to run for office and push for a number of reforms that workers were asking for.

The "ultra-left" has no strategy - they think that the working class is the only force that can achieve communism, rather than supporting some team of leftist nerds who think that it's their duty to educate the unwashed masses.

I think it's a fair point for trots to make that the working class needs tangible demands to organize around. The bourgeoisie certainly did before they took class power. And it's not like a $15 minimum wage is a demand being imposed by the Trots on the proles - as evidenced by the fact that she won, and the fact that Occupy Seattle had been organizing around similar demands.

And if we're going to talk about "success" then I beg you to show me where your pals in Peru and India have achieved any 'successes' besides murdering innocent people and becoming drug dealers. :laugh:Yeah good point if I was in the CWI I unsure if I really want some hardline Maoists coming in on my side to defend my political strategies. Especially since the Maoists in Nepal are just about the best example of what can go wrong when commies participate in electoral politics.

#FF0000

17th November 2013, 19:59

Ehm, I would say that ultra-lefts have the most tangible results to show in the first world.

Such as?

again an honest question. i used to like a lot of the ultra-left things I read but that ended pretty much as soon as I started to try to organize something to do a thing w/ other working class people and it turned out everything i read was actually useless.

ckaihatsu

17th November 2013, 20:06

If Sawant was voted in to sit on a board of directors of some company, with the goal of raising wages and claiming to be socialist, then people would be laughing at her. Why then, are people not laughing in this instance?

No, sorry, that's *not* an apt comparison -- businesses are in the *private sector*, while politics is all about monolithic *governance*, or the *public* sector.

Perhaps if she somehow made it to the board of a *transnational* corporation, like Wal-Mart, your point would be valid, but we all know that's not going to happen anyway.

---

Yeah. Capitalism has these features:

1. Wage labor.
2. Appropriation of surplus labor by an exploiting class.
3. Private ownership of the means of production.
4. Market allocation of goods and investment.

Nationalizing some or even all companies only removes #3.

"Only" -- ??

The *practical* question for our politics and demands is whether the actual realization of such would be *enough* of a difference to allow the world's working class to gain true collective independence over their / our own lives -- I'll liken it to the historic escaping from the feudal lands to the towns, so-to-speak.

There would be a massive 'snowball effect' at that tipping point, because a global 99% that is no longer dependent on capital for its life and livelihood would then suddenly have a *lot* of free time on its hands with which to 'finish things off', revolution-wise.

If [#3] were the only thing done it would be state capitalism, which IMO is undesirable.

Your point is understandable and well-taken, but I'll stand by my comments that follow "Only".

Socialism should remove 1, 2, 3, and... just those ;) (4 can be mitigated through democratic control over institutions, though eventually it might be possible, who knows.)

We can do far better than any kind of market socialism, as has been explored at this thread:

Detailed Alternatives to ParEcon?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/detailed-alternatives-pareconi-t184018/index.html

reb

17th November 2013, 20:06

State =/= Capital. Karl Liebknecht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Liebknecht) was elected into parliament prior to WW1 for the socdem party, but that didn't stop him from being a militant anticapitalist who campaigned against the war and was actually killed by the "social democrats" who had become institutionalized when he tried to lead a Communist revolt in Berlin.

The modern state, no matter what it form it takes, is a capitalist machine.

Really I think you can't say that leftism is incompatible with electoral politics if you look at the fact that there are a number of leftwing politicians who got elected or who supported electoral politics then got killed for supporting some kind of working class uprising. The problem is that a number of leftists want to play the "no true scotsman" game and argue that anyone who ever tries to participate in electoral politics can't really be an authentic socialist.

I don't say that leftism is incompatible with electoral politics, on the contrary, leftism, as in The Left, is perfectly compatible with it. Here in lies the detachment of leftism from actual working class struggle. You're even using these sort of terms such as "left wing". This is the problem, not the "no true scotsman" game.

I DO think it's reasonable to argue, based on past experience, that electoralism is a dead end road (I don't know if it's right, but it's certainly a reasonable argument), but I DON'T think you can say that Mrs Sawant is somehow less socialist once she decided to run for office and push for a number of reforms that workers were asking for.

Comrade, I thought were all communists here? Do we not want to abolish capital? Do we want to make capitalism nicer? And why should we have to praise the walking corpse of social-democracy as it stumbles yet again into the field of communism?

reb

17th November 2013, 20:11

No, sorry, that's *not* an apt comparison -- businesses are in the *private sector*, while politics is all about monolithic *governance*, or the *public* sector.

Perhaps if she somehow made it to the board of a *transnational* corporation, like Wal-Mart, your point would be valid, but we all know that's not going to happen anyway.

---

Why do socialists view the state as this entirely neutral thing devoid of actual context? Fact is, 99%, and if we are being honest here probably more, of the people on this forum has no idea what the state is and it's relation to capitalism. And, correct me if I am wrong here, but are there not also people calling for the nationalization of industry? Why start calling yourself a stalinist?

ckaihatsu

17th November 2013, 20:22

And, correct me if I am wrong here, but are there not also people calling for the nationalization of industry? Why start calling yourself a stalinist?

Yes -- again, from the SA platform (post #129):

For public ownership and democratic control of the major banks.

Take bankrupt and failing companies into public ownership and retool them for socially necessary green production.

Public ownership of the big energy companies.

Such radical reforms would not *automatically*, *necessarily* lead into Stalinism / state capitalism -- such de-privatization should be *welcomed*, as a transitional step.

The Feral Underclass

17th November 2013, 20:44

Wanna make it clear that I think SAlt has abysmal politics but saying "yo they are soc dems/greens/little more than progressive democrats" is far off base.

But they ran on a social democratic platform to achieve bourgeois power. Saying their politics is social democratic would be accurate, since that is demonstrably what it is. And so far no one has been able to articulate the long term purpose of this.

How should it be presented? Because they've said they don't think that reforms alone can get rid of capitalism. And have any of you so much as looked at their website? How many social democratic organizations have articles on Marxism and works by Lenin and Trotsky under their "theory and publications" tab?

But this is the ultimate question isn't it? It's the question that has so far been evaded or left unanswered altogether.

They have articles about Marxism and they call themselves socialists, but as of yet they have done nothing that would indicate they have any idea on how to actually implement Marx's ideas and create a socialist society. They have managed to get someone to city council. How is that going to create a socialist society? How is going to even move closer to it? How does it feed into a long term strategy? What is the objective of doing this?

Having articles on your website is not a defence against executing a social democratic agenda that is being done for seemingly inexplicable reasons.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

17th November 2013, 20:44

The modern state, no matter what it form it takes, is a capitalist machine.

The feudalist state was a feudal machine, but the bourgeoisie still demanded their right to participate. That fact certainly helped them to overcome the feudal state and the landed aristocracy in places like the UK.

The state is an institution that works on behalf of capitalism, but it isn't the same as capital. Nor does every person within a Capitalist state necessarily need to work on behalf of Capital. Again, numerous revolutionaries have worked within the Capitalist state on behalf of workers without betraying revolution as a longer term goal.

I don't say that leftism is incompatible with electoral politics, on the contrary, leftism, as in The Left, is perfectly compatible with it. Here in lies the detachment of leftism from actual working class struggle. You're even using these sort of terms such as "left wing". This is the problem, not the "no true scotsman" game.
OK I don't like the term "the left" either but I'm not trying to have a semantic debate I'm trying to say that supporting reforms doesn't exclude the possibility of supporting revolution, and the examples of Karl and Rosa indicate.

Comrade, I thought were all communists here? Do we not want to abolish capital? Do we want to make capitalism nicer? And why should we have to praise the walking corpse of social-democracy as it stumbles yet again into the field of communism?I want to abolish capital - but I think it's reasonable to think that we can build the kind of movement necessary to abolish capital by organizing workers around particular problems within capitalism. Workers organize together to raise the minimum wage, build political skills and organizations, and build the confidence, ideology and tools necessary to organize with one another.

The reason WHY workers vote for democrats, the labor party, the Mexican PRI, the French, Spanish and Portuguese "Socialists", etc is because they don't see revolution as a realistic alternative and because the tradition of unified political agency has been worn down. The idea of SAlt and other organizations seem to be that the way around this impasse is to organize around realizable short-term goals and build an organizational infrastructure around that, and expand the radical nature of those goals as the organizational infrastructure expands. Hopefully that infrastructure will eventually reach the point where it can realistically act as a vanguard, but until then organizing around modest demands within capitalism is fine.

But they ran on a social democratic platform to achieve bourgeois power. Saying their politics is social democratic would be accurate, since that is demonstrably what it is. And so far no one has been able to articulate the long term purpose of this.

It's different to have a "social democrat platform" as a set of short-term goals to (1) improve conditions for the proletariat and (2) to help organize the proletariat than it is to have a "social democrat platform" as a long-term goal of reforming capitalism and making it livable. Perhaps Socialist Alternative's platform in this election is equivalent to that of a social democrat party, but unlike a social democrat party there's no indication that they limit themselves to it.

To draw an analogy to a different ideology, if there is someone who is a consistent Islamic fundamentalist and wants to install a caliphate, and they run on a "reformist Islamist" platform of requiring the hijab, do we assume that they have abandoned their more radical agenda?

Orange Juche

17th November 2013, 20:49

Yay, another social democrat gets elected. Congrats people, go home now, watch her do nothing. Watch actual socialism not ever be mentioned by her.

Sometimes I really think most people on the left just want to be miserable.

The Feral Underclass

17th November 2013, 20:57

So we shouldn't fight for immediate goals or reforms?

Fighting for immediate goals and reforms is all fine and well, but they have to serve a long term strategy for building a counter-power that can genuinely challenge capitalism and the state. Our objective is to seize the means of production. That is our immediate goal.

Therefore, everything that we do, whether it is fighting for immediate reforms or some workplace goals have to serve a function towards that objective. Each time we decide to fight for a reform there has to be a clear reason why and how that is going to benefit a long term strategy and how it is going to help us get closer to our objective. If it doesn't achieve that, then why are we doing it? And if people are arguing that this is going to help us get one step closer to our objective, I want to understand how and why.

Does anyone want to answer these questions?

The Feral Underclass

17th November 2013, 21:04

It's different to have a "social democrat platform" as a set of short-term goals to (1) improve conditions for the proletariat and (2) to help organize the proletariat

What is the purpose of "improving conditions for the proletariat"? How is being elected to city council going to "help organise the proletariat"? What is your long term strategy?

Perhaps Socialist Alternative's platform in this election is equivalent to that of a social democrat party, but unlike a social democrat party there's no indication that they limit themselves to it.

This fundamentally misunderstands the reality of the bourgeois electoral system, which is limited by its very nature. What do you imagine these possibilities to be?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

17th November 2013, 21:06

Fighting for immediate goals and reforms is all fine and well, but they have to serve a long term strategy for building a counter-power that can genuinely challenge capitalism and the state. Our objective is to seize the means of production. That is our immediate goal.

Therefore, everything that we do, whether it is fighting for immediate reforms or some workplace goals have to serve a function towards that objective. Each time we decide to fight for a reform there has to be a clear reason why and how that is going to benefit a long term strategy and how it is going to help us get closer to our objective. If it doesn't achieve that, then why are we doing it? And if people are arguing that this is going to help us get one step closer to our objective, I want to understand how and why.

Does anyone want to answer these questions?

If there is a prole whose wife is sick and lacks health coverage, he wants health coverage for her right now. He might want to own the means of production, but that's sort of less immediate than his wife getting the health coverage she needs. So if he has to chose between some ultraleft who mistrusts all participation in bourgeois politics and some Democrat offering some shitty halfassed reform that gets my wife health coverage, I might just go with that crap Democrat politician.

We should help to overcome that false dichotomy between reform and revolution, not just reinforce it.

What is the purpose of "improving conditions for the proletariat"? How is being elected to city council going to "help organise the proletariat"? What is your long term strategy?

Improving the conditions of the proletariat makes their life less miserable. Fighting for improvements to the living conditions of workers is as important as opposing the attempts by capitalists to strip away protections for workers within the bourgeois state. Being elected to city council alone won't organize the proletariat but it can be a part of a broader strategy.

As for if I have a long term strategy - don't ask me, I'm not a member of the CWI or a sympathizer, I just think people are unfairly mischaracterizing them and their participation in electoral politics, and I think Mrs Sawant deserves the respect of a fair shake.

This fundamentally misunderstands the reality of the bourgeois electoral system, which is limited by its very nature. What do you imagine these possibilities to be?I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of participating in bourgeois electoral politics, which does not limit a movement from also participating in other modes of struggle. I would never recommend electoral politics as an alternative to union struggles, strikes, protests, occupations, squats etc.

The bourgeois electoral system is limited for an activist, but it acts (1) as a bullypulpit and (2) as a place to push for reforms which the proletariat is demanding. If the reforms get pushed through, it alleviates the suffering of the working class and validates their struggle, while if it doesn't, it objectively proves the limits of the bourgeois state and reveals the need to move beyond it.

Lily Briscoe

17th November 2013, 21:13

There seems to be this bizarre assumption in this thread that "proles" (and 'their wives' apparently :rolleyes:) are all going out in droves to vote in these elections and that this election somehow makes "socialism" relevant to "the mainstream". Incidentally the statewide voter turnout in Washington for the recent November 5 election was under 45% for eligible voters. People don't care about this stuff. I haven't heard anyone other than leftist politicos even mention Sawant and I live in the Seattle area; I'm 99.99999% certain that if I went into work tomorrow and started talking about her, not one soul would have any idea who she was.

Some people really need a reality check.

reb

17th November 2013, 21:16

Yes -- again, from the SA platform (post #129):

Such radical reforms would not *automatically*, *necessarily* lead into Stalinism / state capitalism -- such de-privatization should be *welcomed*, as a transitional step.

Are you even a human, or a robot? It just seems like you're mechanically rolling out tropes without knowing what any of it means.

The Feral Underclass

17th November 2013, 21:19

If there is a prole whose wife is sick and lacks health coverage, he wants health coverage for her right now. He might want to own the means of production, but that's sort of less immediate than his wife getting the health coverage she needs. So if he has to chose between some ultraleft who mistrusts all participation in bourgeois politics and some Democrat offering some shitty halfassed reform that gets my wife health coverage, I might just go with that crap Democrat politician.

Actually what he wants is health care. The coverage is irrelevant providing his wife is being given the healthcare. Instead of socialists using their time, money and resources to get someone elected, so that this electee can argue for the wife's health coverage, perhaps try and pass some legislation, but then get bogged down in parliamentary inertia and undermined by insurance companies, why don't they work with the man and his family and his community to build worker run institutions that can provide health care? That's a genuine question.

If the state is preventing the wife from getting the medication she needs organise people to go and take it. If the police come, organise a defence within communities to ensure they aren't arrested. Mobilise the community, build solidarity and class unity.

We should help to overcome that false dichotomy between reform and revolution, not just reinforce it.

The process of communism has to begin from where we are. If the man wants health care for his wife then he must use the ideas and tactics of communists to achieve that. Likewise, communists should use their resources, time and energy to help bring into existence institutions that can both provide health care and challenge the hegemony of the ruling class.

We cannot build for a counter-power to capitalism if we are not a) prepared to make sacrifices and b) not prepared to actually do the building. This "prole" doesn't need a Knight in Shining Armour, he needs to feel emboldened within a community that will take action to resolve their own problems.

That sounds like hard work, doesn't it? Getting someone elected to city council and calling it a victory is much simpler.

reb

17th November 2013, 21:25

The feudalist state was a feudal machine, but the bourgeoisie still demanded their right to participate. That fact certainly helped them to overcome the feudal state and the landed aristocracy in places like the UK.

The state is an institution that works on behalf of capitalism, but it isn't the same as capital. Nor does every person within a Capitalist state necessarily need to work on behalf of Capital. Again, numerous revolutionaries have worked within the Capitalist state on behalf of workers without betraying revolution as a longer term goal.

Feudalism isn't a mode of production. Again, this superficial idea that the state seems strangely prevalent here. If you don't have a marxist answer, you can at least look at historical facts, you can look to places where social democrats have had control over state power. Where are these places now? Are we living in socialism?

OK I don't like the term "the left" either but I'm not trying to have a semantic debate I'm trying to say that supporting reforms doesn't exclude the possibility of supporting revolution, and the examples of Karl and Rosa indicate.

I'm not trying to have a semantic debate. I'm having an argument over the social democratic notion of revolution, the party and it's relation to the working class. How can you possibly expect to have working class participation in something like the bourgeois structure of the state? Let's just elect someone to speak on our behalf! Sort of! Or if that doesn't entice you, then perhaps we can call it propaganda to show people that this socialism thing is good!

It totally ignores the Marxist understanding that the opposition to capital begins with the labor-capital relation, the every day confrontation of labor with capital. Not in politics which is idealistic, and not with policies like these which are utopian. It ignores the organic growth of proletarian organization.

[quote[I want to abolish capital - but I think it's reasonable to think that we can build the kind of movement necessary to abolish capital by organizing workers around particular problems within capitalism. Workers organize together to raise the minimum wage, build political skills and organizations, and build the confidence, ideology and tools necessary to organize with one another.[/quote]

This is the same problem. Organizing this shapeless blob of mindless workers.

The Feral Underclass

17th November 2013, 21:26

Improving the conditions of the proletariat makes their life less miserable. Fighting for improvements to the living conditions of workers is as important as opposing the attempts by capitalists to strip away protections for workers within the bourgeois state.

Why fight for improvements when we can just create improvements? From whom are we fighting for these improvements and why are we not just taking them?

Being elected to city council alone won't organize the proletariat but it can be a part of a broader strategy.

Which is what?

As for if I have a long term strategy - don't ask me, I'm not a member of the CWI or a sympathizer, I just think people are unfairly mischaracterizing them and their participation in electoral politics, and I think Mrs Sawant deserves the respect of a fair shake.

But you are defending their ideas and their actions, so if you don't understand how this fits into a long term strategy, on what basis are you supporting it?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of participating in bourgeois electoral politics, which does not limit a movement from also participating in other modes of struggle.

That isn't really an adequate response to my criticism. You thinking I don't understand the nature of participating in bourgeois politics doesn't mean that what I said isn't true.

What are these "other modes of struggle"?

I would never recommend electoral politics as an alternative to union struggles, strikes, protests, occupations, squats etc.

In their current formations, these things are largely just as ineffective.

(2) as a place to push for reforms which the proletariat is demanding. If the reforms get pushed through, it alleviates the suffering of the working class and validates their struggle, while if it doesn't, it objectively proves the limits of the bourgeois state and reveals the need to move beyond it.

Give me one example where this has ever been the case.

Art Vandelay

17th November 2013, 21:34

(Socialist Alternative is a part of the CWI, correct?)
Yes.

As far as I know, those were the demands being pushed by Seattle's proles.
The call for a 15$ minimum wage, as far as I am aware, is a demand which arose organically out of workers strikes in the northern U.S., which is where SA is predominantly located in the states. I'm not entirely sure, but I think it may have been predominantly out of the fast food workers strikes.

The idea that SA has been putting forth a line of 'oh vote for us and the minimum wage will be 15$' is a total fabrication, made by people who (based off what they are saying) I have to assume don't have any knowledge of the campaign outside of what they maybe read on a website. The message has always been clear: our influence on city council will be extremely limited, regardless whether we win or not, we will need to continue to mobilize people on a grass roots level to struggle for these demands. That is what these campaigns have been primarily used for, a platform to spread our message and make genuine links within the working class.

---

The long term strategy of this is the same regardless if we had lost. Our work in Minneapolis will continue to look the same as the grassroots work in Seattle; the only difference is that in Seattle we now have slightly more influence and visibility. Through the campaigns we are now in contact with a vastly larger cross section of the working class, who were not only sympathetic to our ideas, but also wanted, the organization to keep them up to date for any grass roots organizing work that will be going on in their area. On top of this, we plan on spreading many of the demands north of the border to Canada, with the hopes in the coming future, we can link up strikes and mobilizations between the northern U.S. and Canada; I would think predominantly Minneapolis/Seattle/Boston in the U.S. and B.C./Ontario/Quebec in Canada.

Now I'm going to bow out of this thread, since as already stated by some of the posters here, there are a group of posters who think the terms social-democratic and Trotskyist are synonyms, so I don't think much productive discussion will be had, since the entirety of this thread has predominantly filled with strawmen. SA will continue its work with occupy homes, mobilizing communities and activists to militantly defend people who have been unfairly evicted, continue to work with working class citizens in their struggle for better working conditions, and will continue to fight against police brutality and murder. In other words it will continue to attempt to build an organization which will have a role to play in future revolutionary situations. Now if people want to criticize that strategy, then by all means do, but don’t critique some figment of your own imagination, that has nothing to do with the campaigns being run.

Five Year Plan

17th November 2013, 21:48

How should it be presented? Because they've said they don't think that reforms alone can get rid of capitalism. And have any of you so much as looked at their website? How many social democratic organizations have articles on Marxism and works by Lenin and Trotsky under their "theory and publications" tab?

I can actually think of a couple that do, actually. The obvious answer, of course, is Die Neue Zeit, which routinely published excerpts from the works of Marx and Engels alongside the worst reformist essays of people like Eduard Bernstein. The point of the reformist party of whole class is to be large enough to win elections. That is its main objective, and part of this means throwing crumbs to placate subjective revolutionaries, while also defanging them programatically, which might entail doing things like selling them literature about Trotsky. It can even be argued that a reformist party of the whole class needs to do such things if it is to grow large enough in a society where many workers have been radicalized by revolutionaries. What matters in terms of judging their politics isn't whether they name-drop this or that great revolutionary, but the program they practically pursue in their day-to-day work.

Perhaps if you spent your time on this forum doing more then shit slinging, you'd know that the Transitional Program (the basis for post-Trotsky Trotskyism, for all intents and purposes), was a program which contained minimum demands, transitional demands, and the maximum demand of socialist revolution.It needs to be pointed out that not only is this correct, but that it implicitly raises a criticism against Sawant's campaign. She deserves credit for propagandizing on her website about taking the top 500 corporations under democratic public ownership by an alliance of workers and youth. It is a demand of a transitional nature, albeit one that disappointingly doesn't seem to receive much propagandistic emphasis.

What's missing from all the propaganda I have seen from Sawant is one of the key parts of a Trotskyist program, of which the transitional demands constitute only one component. That key part is the maximum program of socialist revolution. This is important because while a transitional measure might imply socialist revolution, the two are not synonymous. Trotsky said that workers won over to transitional measures, and struggling for them, are only at the "doorstep" of socialist revolution because they hadn't been won over to the full program of revolution. They are banging on the door to revolution, wanting to get what's at the other side, but they won't open the door "implicitly" or accidentally. They'll do it by consciously overthrowing the bourgeois state in an act of revolution to which they have explicitly been won over.

Revolutionary socialists seek to win workers over through explicitly revolutionary propaganda that openly explains the need for completely eliminating capitalism and replacing it with a new socialist society. This process entails also propagandizing for transitional measures, as Sawant does, but it doesn't stop there. Sawant's campaign deserves criticism for this, which I think is directly related to the campaign's over-emphasis on agitation. In a period of low struggle, foregrounding agitation as strongly as Sawant did can only amount to an opportunistic adaptation to the backward consciousness of wide layers of workers, adaptation rooted in a poor understanding of the role of bourgeois politics and elections in the process of revolutionary struggle.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

17th November 2013, 22:31

Actually what he wants is health care. The coverage is irrelevant providing his wife is being given the healthcare. Instead of socialists using their time, money and resources to get someone elected, so that this electee can argue for the wife's health coverage, perhaps try and pass some legislation, but then get bogged down in parliamentary inertia and undermined by insurance companies, why don't they work with the man and his family and his community to build worker run institutions that can provide health care? That's a genuine question.

If the state is preventing the wife from getting the medication she needs organise people to go and take it. If the police come, organise a defence within communities to ensure they aren't arrested. Mobilise the community, build solidarity and class unity.

I know Obama isn't a socialist and I wouldn't say that voting for him is revolutionary, but it's just a fact that people my age got health coverage for a few more years thanks to a reform requiring a parent's health coverage to last until 26. If I'm a sick 25 year old American, or a member of my family is, it's in my material interests to support that reform. As long as liberal democrats are the only ones pushing those reforms they will maintain their political monopoly.

I don't think mobilizing the community in a mass movement and working electorally are mutually exclusive, and nobody has shown that it is.

The process of communism has to begin from where we are. If the man wants health care for his wife then he must use the ideas and tactics of communists to achieve that. Likewise, communists should use their resources, time and energy to help bring into existence institutions that can both provide health care and challenge the hegemony of the ruling class.

We cannot build for a counter-power to capitalism if we are not a) prepared to make sacrifices and b) not prepared to actually do the building. This "prole" doesn't need a Knight in Shining Armour, he needs to feel emboldened within a community that will take action to resolve their own problems.

That sounds like hard work, doesn't it? Getting someone elected to city council and calling it a victory is much simpler.I don't think it's about a "knight in shining armor" - if there is someone running for city council who has been a consistent ally and has organized on the ground with workers before, and is campaigning on issues that the workers themselves have pushed, it's not a "knight in shining armor". Nor again is there anything mutually exclusive between running for office and campaigning on the ground for revolutionary associations of workers, etc

Feudalism isn't a mode of production. Again, this superficial idea that the state seems strangely prevalent here. If you don't have a marxist answer, you can at least look at historical facts, you can look to places where social democrats have had control over state power. Where are these places now? Are we living in socialism?

Last I checked, feudalism is a mode of production according to traditional Marxist analysis. If it isn't, then what form of production predated the Capitalist revolutions of the 1500s-1700s?

You talk about having a "marxist answer" but none of those social democratic movements you mention having taken state power were revolutionary Marxist parties. Labor was openly Fabian, for instance, and the German social democrats were divided between Marxists and Reformists. They were bourgeois movements who wanted to reform Capitalism and make it more "socialist". As far as I know, SAlterntive does not argue for that position.

Nor, as far as I know, did Marx and Engels argue that participating in electoral politics is categorically wrong, so it's hard to argue that running in an election somehow makes one less "Marxist". On the contrary in certain contexts they argued that it was a reasonable strategy. As long as one understands that revolution doesn't come from parliamentary fiat, it's not "un-Marxist" or anything like that to participate in parliamentary politics. It's totally different to say that participating in parliamentary politics is the way to fix society, than it is to say (as SAlternative seems to) that participating in parliamentary politics can help to create the conditions of possibility for a revolution.

I'm not trying to have a semantic debate. I'm having an argument over the social democratic notion of revolution, the party and it's relation to the working class. How can you possibly expect to have working class participation in something like the bourgeois structure of the state? Let's just elect someone to speak on our behalf! Sort of! Or if that doesn't entice you, then perhaps we can call it propaganda to show people that this socialism thing is good!

It totally ignores the Marxist understanding that the opposition to capital begins with the labor-capital relation, the every day confrontation of labor with capital. Not in politics which is idealistic, and not with policies like these which are utopian. It ignores the organic growth of proletarian organization.
There's nothing "utopian" or "idealist" about it - on the contrary, abstentionism as some kind of moral absolute is "utopian and "idealist". Again, I have to remind people of Rosa and Karl, who (1) participated in parliamentary politics on behalf of workers, (2) never lost their revolutionary principles, and (3) died fighting for said revolutionary principles.

It does not "ignore" anything about "Marxist understanding" to say that, as evidenced by the fact that Marx and Engels did not think that nor did the aforementioned German Sparticist martyrs.

This is the same problem. Organizing this shapeless blob of mindless workers.I don't think the "ultraleft" is any better on this - on the contrary, everything I've seen indicates that Sawant's candidacy was organized on the back of actual proletarian organizing. The issues she pushed were recommended by the proletariat, and a portion of the proletariat voted for her and put her in power because they wanted rent control and a $15 minimum wage - more than understandable positions for a worker to push for as a short term objective.

In fact, it's the "ultra left" who is attacking members of the proletariat who thought that this was a reasonable strategy.

Why fight for improvements when we can just create improvements? From whom are we fighting for these improvements and why are we not just taking them?

It's not mutually exclusive to fight for improvements in the state and improvements on the street. Having an anarchist doctor giving free health care is great, but how does voting for Sawant prevent someone from helping the anarchist doctor to give free health care as well?

Which is what?
Ask the CWI that one.

But you are defending their ideas and their actions, so if you don't understand how this fits into a long term strategy, on what basis are you supporting it?
I'm defending their ideas and actions because all the arguments against them are obvious strawmen of their real positions, and because I don't see any reason why participating in parliamentary politics is mutually exclusive with revolution.

That isn't really an adequate response to my criticism. You thinking I don't understand the nature of participating in bourgeois politics doesn't mean that what I said isn't true.

What are these "other modes of struggle"?
Well your criticism wasn't a particularly good one either. What you said isn't true - the fact is that I can participate in electoral politics while ALSO participating in revolutionary struggle. There's not some law of nature depriving me of that ability.

As for what are the other modes of struggle - I don't know, everything except abstentionism.

In their current formations, these things are largely just as ineffective.
Probably, but participating in them doesn't make one less socialist. Perhaps Sawant won't be able to do anything good for the working class so her efforts will be in vain but it doesn't make her a "liberal" as some here were calling her.

Give me one example where this has ever been the case.The 8 hour workday? Social security?

ckaihatsu

17th November 2013, 23:05

Are you even a human, or a robot? It just seems like you're mechanically rolling out tropes without knowing what any of it means.

Your perceptions are off-kilter.

Leave off from the broad mischaracterizations and just address the content of what I'm saying.

Tolstoy

17th November 2013, 23:47

Good to know as long as your group name has "socialist" in it and your rhetoric sounds vaguely radical, you can put whatever social democratic and liberal points you want in your platform and leftists will crawl out from under the woodwork to defend it.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Seriously, all of you ultraleftist shit sippers can all go get fucked.

For once in quite some time, it has been proven that Americans can and are willing to vote for a person whose openly a Socialist. The reason that shes promoting reasonable goals is simply because on councilwoman obviously wont be capable of establishing a dictatorship of the proleteriat.

So what?!?! Even if she fails in even her most basic goals like instituting the 15 dollar minimum wage, she has still done a shit load for the workers and socialists of america than your metaphorical internet jizz lobbing comes close too

The Feral Underclass

17th November 2013, 23:49

she has still done a shit load for the workers and socialists of america

Such as what?

Remus Bleys

17th November 2013, 23:49

fucking $15 please. Why does everyone keep going 15$?

This is really and truly bothering me. It's like when people are going %100.

The Feral Underclass

17th November 2013, 23:51

What the fuck are you talking about?

Seriously, all of you ultraleftist shit sippers can all go get fucked.

For once in quite some time, it has been proven that Americans can and are willing to vote for a person whose openly a Socialist. The reason that shes promoting reasonable goals is simply because on councilwoman obviously wont be capable of establishing a dictatorship of the proleteriat.

So what?!?! Even if she fails in even her most basic goals like instituting the 15 dollar minimum wage, she has still done a shit load for the workers and socialists of america than your metaphorical internet jizz lobbing comes close too

Frankly, for a member of Socialist Alternative who is responding to legitimate criticisms of their organisation and their tactics, you should be ashamed of this response.

If you can't take criticism or explain yourself coherently, then all you do is prove even further how completely redundant and out of touch you people are.

Tolstoy

17th November 2013, 23:53

Such as what?

Her activism for one thing. No matter what she has called quite a bit of attention to Socialism in the United States. I would say she's a vastly better Socialist than a bunch of weirdos on Revleft embracing idealogies which have no place in 21st century america like Hoxhaism and ultraleftism

The Feral Underclass

17th November 2013, 23:53

The 8 hour workday? Social security?

Both of these things were achieved because of massive working class mobilisation, direct action and/or as a response to profound economic crisis. They were not achieved by someone being elected into office.

I will respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.

The Feral Underclass

17th November 2013, 23:56

Her activism for one thing.

So in other words her not being a member of City Council...

No matter what she has called quite a bit of attention to Socialism in the United States.

No she hasn't. If she has brought attention to anything it is a social-democratic agenda of anti-big business.

Tolstoy

17th November 2013, 23:58

Frankly, for a member of Socialist Alternative who is responding to legitimate criticisms of their organisation and their tactics, you should be ashamed of this response.

If you can't take criticism or explain yourself coherently, then all you do is prove even further how completely redundant and out of touch you people are.

Because it's all so silly. Admittedly, I was pretty irritable because I knew this was coming, I knew this thread would be full of all of the same depresseing leftist negativity.

In all seriousness, we should be happy about her election because it proves that many more Americans are interested in Socialism than we think

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2013, 00:00

In all seriousness, we should be happy about her election because it proves that many more Americans are interested in Socialism than we think

If that were true she would have run on a specifically socialist platform, which she didn't.

o well this is ok I guess

18th November 2013, 00:05

Her activism for one thing. No matter what she has called quite a bit of attention to Socialism in the United States. I would say she's a vastly better Socialist than a bunch of weirdos on Revleft embracing idealogies which have no place in 21st century america like Hoxhaism and ultraleftism Get a load of this guy
he supposed that no one on revleft ever has done the activism thing

Brotto RÃ¼hle

18th November 2013, 02:13

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/15/1255951/-A-Socialist-in-Seattle-Won-With-What-Should-be-the-Democratic-Party-Brand

Crux

18th November 2013, 04:46

Finally someone comes out with a relevant critique of Sawant from a Marxist perspective. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IvMrnP3VUc)

Sinister Cultural Marxist

18th November 2013, 04:59

Both of these things were achieved because of massive working class mobilisation, direct action and/or as a response to profound economic crisis. They were not achieved by someone being elected into office.

I will respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.

They were all passed into law by people voted into office. The fact that there was a mass movement doesn't mean that they didn't also have to become a law by legislative means, just like any other law. Likewise, there was a groundswell for better housing policies for the poor, more public transit, a higher minimum wage, etc, and this had an impact on the elected institutions of Seattle, just as in the populist era a century ago.

My point is this - there was a groundswell from Seattle's working class for a $15 min wage, rent control and improved public transit, and a part of that groundswell included electing a candidate. I don't think voting her into office was a bad thing, even though you are MORE than correct in pointing out that it won't bring socialism. I just don't think that we need to hold off on any political activity that doesn't immediately bring some kind of socialist revolution. Diversity of tactics means that we can vote for people without also needing to assume that our votes alone will change reality.

If that were true she would have run on a specifically socialist platform, which she didn't.

That's true, she did NOT run on a socialist platform and so it's wrong to say that somehow Americans don't mistrust socialism, but it is also true that Americans, in Seattle at least, don't have a gut repulsion to anyone who openly calls themselves a follower of Marx's, Lenin's and Leon Trotsky's political line.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/15/1255951/-A-Socialist-in-Seattle-Won-With-What-Should-be-the-Democratic-Party-Brand

Yeah I don't think some rambling Democrat partisan blogger trying to drag his own party to the left and who has no knowledge of the SAlternative party, Socialist theory or what Socialist politics consists of is a particularly compelling analyst.

This isn't to say that people shouldn't be critical of the limits of what Mrs Sawant can actually feasibly do in office or Socialist Alternative's political program or rhetoric, I just don't think people are fairly characterizing her or making fair criticisms. It's not like there have never been revolutionary marxists who participated in bourgeois politics for short term ends, as in the examples I've already given.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

18th November 2013, 05:02

Of the Sawant voters/supporters in Seattle I know personally, most are liberals who are critical of socialism.

DasFapital

18th November 2013, 06:05

We must now begin the task of strengthening the Seattle Soviet against the bourgeois. First we must suppress the collaborationist peasants in White Center.

argeiphontes

18th November 2013, 06:22

Of the Sawant voters/supporters in Seattle I know personally, most are liberals who are critical of socialism.

Huh. Were they just trying to send a message to the Democrats or something? Or were they willing to vote for anyone who had her platform, knowing she'd never institute socialism?

Orange Juche

18th November 2013, 06:29

Huh. Were they just trying to send a message to the Democrats or something? Or were they willing to vote for anyone who had her platform, knowing she'd never institute socialism?

Or did they mistake "Socialist" in "Socialist Alternative" for, "She's like Norway, right?"

Popular Front of Judea

18th November 2013, 06:38

Or did they mistake "Socialist" in "Socialist Alternative" for, "She's like Norway, right?"

We were hoping she's like Denmark actually ...

Danielle Ni Dhighe

18th November 2013, 07:04

Huh. Were they just trying to send a message to the Democrats or something? Or were they willing to vote for anyone who had her platform, knowing she'd never institute socialism?
Her Democrat opponent was seen as past his prime and out of touch, and the local party machine acted like they had everything wrapped up, and liberals wanted to send a message. And, yes, I think they would have voted for a Democrat with the same platform, because they know a socialist on a city council is hardly going to usher in the Seattle Soviet.

Popular Front of Judea

18th November 2013, 07:10

Her Democrat opponent was seen as past his prime and out of touch, and the local party machine acted like they had everything wrapped up, and liberals wanted to send a message. And, yes, I think they would have voted for a Democrat with the same platform, because they know a socialist on a city council is hardly going to usher in the Seattle Soviet.

No argument here against Conlin's seat being vulnerable. Kudos to Sawant and SAlt for seizing the opportunity.

Tolstoy

18th November 2013, 12:43

Brotto RÃ¼hle

18th November 2013, 13:00

Once again, Sawant is coming out with realisitic goals that are actually relevant to the interests of working people in Seattle. I really think that is what ultimately matters. In all seriousness, Socialist Alternative is a very serious Trotskyist Organization and the CWI is growing globally, our South African affiliate WASP being featured on BBC.

It isnt just Sawants activism that makes her worthy, its her sheer level of participation in workers struggles, and her calling attention to Socialism globally.

Honestly, I dont see anything more destructive to the goal of Socialism than bleating about "reformism" every time someone has a chance to do good. C'mon this isnt a CPUSA or DSA candidate or anything, so I would say that she truly is a Socialist.

Additionally, if she were a liberal than answer me this: Why the hell would she want to run as a Socialist Alternative candidate. She could have just as easily run as a Green Party candidate which would not carry the name risk with voters that Socialism does. Do you think she chose to run as a Socialist to gain votes?:laugh:

There are numerous liberal and social democratic parties that have "realistic goals that are actually relevant to the interests of working people in" *insert location here*. That's the problem, as the article I linked suggested, Sawant merely "Out- Democrated the Democrats". Here goals aren't socialistic, they aren't "transitional demands", but they are fully acceptable among most liberals and social democrats. Maybe she is a "socialist", but her lack of calling for socialism, of explaining it, is pure opportunism.

A lot of liberals happen to think they're socialists, which is quite evident from many on this website.

I'm not against reforms, and not against a raise in the minimum wage. I am against how this opportunist Sawant believes she can dupe the working class into believing she can raise their standard of living just by voting. Fuck that, reforms come from the direct struggle of the working class.

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2013, 13:04

I know Obama isn't a socialist and I wouldn't say that voting for him is revolutionary, but it's just a fact that people my age got health coverage for a few more years thanks to a reform requiring a parent's health coverage to last until 26. If I'm a sick 25 year old American, or a member of my family is, it's in my material interests to support that reform. As long as liberal democrats are the only ones pushing those reforms they will maintain their political monopoly.

Yes, I understand that it's politically expedient. It's not that I need you to spell out your justification to me, what I need you to explain is how your conception of revolutionary practice is going to achieve communism.

I don't think mobilizing the community in a mass movement and working electorally are mutually exclusive, and nobody has shown that it is.

That's the incorrect analysis. Yes, you are correct, you can physically do both of these things at the same time. The question is: Why? If you are correctly mobilising and organising within communities and building a counter-power that is acting for itself, why would you need electoral politics?

I don't think it's about a "knight in shining armor" - if there is someone running for city council who has been a consistent ally and has organized on the ground with workers before, and is campaigning on issues that the workers themselves have pushed, it's not a "knight in shining armor".

The meaning of the phrase is: "A person who comes to the aid of another in a gallant and courteous manner." How is that description and your description different?

This goes back to my point about how we conceive revolutionary practice. Your view is that a revolutionary socialist must come to the aid of the downtrodden worker (the damsel in distress), pushing an anti-big business agenda (the dragon) for fairness and a little more equality; to establish allies of the workers, to work in their interests in the big, scary halls of government

You conceive the revolutionary as a social worker doing whatever they can do to improve the lives of workers and not as a political militant. That's fine. If you want to help give a worker more money from the surplus value they create, that's all fine and well. Who doesn't want a higher wage?

But how does that relate to revolutionary strategy? How is that assisting your long term objective of seizing the means of production? How is handing over responsibility to someone else building class unity and solidarity amongst communities? How does it build class consciousness? How is it advancing your ultimate goal of creating a communist society?

These are genuine questions and they are questions that should be the fundamental basis of any decision that a revolutionary communist makes in regards to tactics and strategy. Just doing something because it improves the lives of workers is not an adequate basis. If you want to do that, join a charity. We are here to overthrow reality. That is our mission, as dramatic as it sounds, and we have to take it seriously.

Ultimately, electoral politics is about the immediate prize and is not about building class consciousness, class unity and class solidarity, therefore making it a massive waste of resources and time.

Nor again is there anything mutually exclusive between running for office and campaigning on the ground for revolutionary associations of workers, etc

But there is a way that you can achieve immediate solutions while also building class consciousness, class unity and class solidarity -- three fundamental components necessary to build a counter-power to capital and the state. Electoral politics is therefore a waste of resources and time.

It's not mutually exclusive to fight for improvements in the state and improvements on the street. Having an anarchist doctor giving free health care is great, but how does voting for Sawant prevent someone from helping the anarchist doctor to give free health care as well?

The doctor doesn't have to be an anarchist, they just have to want to give free healthcare. The fact you used the prefix "anarchist" to describe this doctor demonstrates further the kind of political myopia that accompanies electoral politics.

This isn't about ideology. It's about building the necessary components for achieving a counter-power. If you have an organisation of people who are providing free healthcare, taking risks to secure prescriptions and defending each other from state persecution, you have achieved more (or equal in your view) than you could being elected into office. At the same time you have built solidarity, consciousness and unity, three things you cannot do from a government office.

Ask the CWI that one.

No. I'm asking you. You are defending this tactic, so it is your responsibility as a socialist to explain what your broader strategy is.

Well your criticism wasn't a particularly good one either. What you said isn't true - the fact is that I can participate in electoral politics while ALSO participating in revolutionary struggle. There's not some law of nature depriving me of that ability.

You said: "Perhaps Socialist Alternative's platform in this election is equivalent to that of a social democrat party, but unlike a social democrat party there's no indication that they limit themselves"

My criticism was that this is a contradiction, since you also agree that electoral politics is limiting, which by default means that Socialist Alternative are limiting themselves. I think that was a perfectly fair criticism to make.

Obviously, your response to this is that we can do all the tactics at the same time, which means we aren't limited. The problem with that, as I've articulated, is that you seem to think that doing lots of tactics is the basis for good policy, where as I am saying that good policy is doing that which will contribute to a long term strategy and an overall objective. I.e. building class unity, solidarity and consciousness to establish a counter-power. Doing anything that won't achieve those things is a waste of time, money and resources.

I wonder, incidentally, how much money Sawant spent on her campaign. I wonder how much time people committed to getting her elected. That, in my view, is a profoundly misplaced allocation of resources.

Probably, but participating in them doesn't make one less socialist.

I don't really care whether it makes someone less socialist. I am not interested in such petty, reductive arguments. My concern is tactics and strategy.

They were all passed into law by people voted into office.

Why do you think that was? Do you think the state and capital were being benevolent?

The fact that there was a mass movement doesn't mean that they didn't also have to become a law by legislative means, just like any other law. Likewise, there was a groundswell for better housing policies for the poor, more public transit, a higher minimum wage, etc, and this had an impact on the elected institutions of Seattle, just as in the populist era a century ago.

You said: "reforms get pushed through, it alleviates the suffering of the working class and validates their struggle, while if it doesn't, it objectively proves the limits of the bourgeois state and reveals the need to move beyond it."

I asked for an example. You gave me the 8 hour day and social security. Neither of those examples were "pushed through reforms," they were responses to mass mobilisation, direct action and/or profound economic crisis. Elected officials didn't get elected into office on the basis of creating social security and the 8 hour day, elected officials did those things to avoid outright class conflict.

What your examples are good for is actually showing up the falsity behind the statement "proves the limits of the bourgeois state and reveals the need to move beyond it." Actually, what happened was that movements dissipated once those reforms had been enacted, which of course was precisely why they were enacted. Far from revealing the limits of the bourgeois state and the need to move beyond them, they reaffirmed the misconception that the bourgeois state is a tool for good. Why do you think the Labour Party was founded?

Whether you are doing it consciously or not, you seem to be arguing that the bourgeois state acts for the interests of the class...The basis of the flaw in Leninism.

I just don't think that we need to hold off on any political activity that doesn't immediately bring some kind of socialist revolution.

That's a total reduction of my argument. It's not a question of holding off on political activity. I am clearly not proposing activity that only immediately brings some kind of social revolution...

What I am saying is we should do different political activity that builds class consciousness, class unity and class solidarity by creating solutions that pose a conflict with institutions of capital and the state and escalate class conflict.

Any tactic or strategy that does not achieve those things should be abandoned immediately.

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2013, 13:05

Once again, Sawant is coming out with realisitic goals that are actually relevant to the interests of working people in Seattle. I really think that is what ultimately matters.

I thought what ultimately mattered was building for a communist revolution?

Tolstoy

18th November 2013, 13:15

I thought what ultimately mattered was building for a communist revolution?

Speaking in terms of what ultimately matters as far as that city council election goes. The really sad part about all of these attacks on the Sawant campaign from the left is that only good is going to come out of her being elected.

Could you seriously cite this stuff from her website that seems liberal? Im quite fascinated

Danielle Ni Dhighe

18th November 2013, 13:21

I have a Daniel De Leon pamphlet around here someplace where he makes the point that if a socialist should find themselves elected to a bourgeois political body, they should use it as a platform to propagandize for socialist revolution and not to enact reforms.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

18th November 2013, 13:27

Blake's Baby

18th November 2013, 13:32

Speaking in terms of what ultimately matters as far as that city council election goes. The really sad part about all of these attacks on the Sawant campaign from the left is that only good is going to come out of her being elected...

CWIers have been elected to office before. Not aware of any significant improvements in any of the places concerned. Liverpool (where your fore-runners in Militant controlled the council for several years) is and was a disaster area. Coventry (Dave Nellist MP and later councillor for the SPEW) is no better than any other English Midlands town. Lewisham (where the SPEW had a presence on the council) is no better than other London boroughs.

Historical experience says you're wrong; rather than 'only good' coming from this election, 'only nothing' is the likely result.

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2013, 13:35

Speaking in terms of what ultimately matters as far as that city council election goes.

How does getting her elected into office build for communist revolution?

The really sad part about all of these attacks on the Sawant campaign from the left is that only good is going to come out of her being elected.

I'm afraid history is against you on that one.

Could you seriously cite this stuff from her website that seems liberal? Im quite fascinated

Pretty much all of it.

Blake's Baby

18th November 2013, 13:38

sorry, repeat post.

Nothing to see here.

KurtFF8

18th November 2013, 13:39

Finally someone comes out with a relevant critique of Sawant from a Marxist perspective. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IvMrnP3VUc)

My favorite quote from that:
"Why are you happy that she's gotten in? They are revisionism" (Then again I've always thought that fellow is a bit of a "Red Alert Communist")

I think that he, and most of the critics of the SA and this victory in this thread miss the point of why non-SA Leftists are cheering this victory. It's not as if we're all of the sudden putting differences aside and joining some united front, but rather we see this campaign (with its flaws of course) as nonetheless a good sign or rather a good "temperature check" of the mood of people.

The fact that a Marxist, appealing to an Occupy related activist community was able to get this much traction (which included union endorsements amongst others mind you) should be see as a good sign by the Left. Does that mean that the "transitional demands" should have been formulated differently, or that some of the rhetoric of her campaign should have been more explicit? Of course, but those critiques miss the forest through the trees in my opinion.

Crux

18th November 2013, 14:58

My favorite quote from that:
"Why are you happy that she's gotten in? They are revisionism" (Then again I've always thought that fellow is a bit of a "Red Alert Communist")

I think that he, and most of the critics of the SA and this victory in this thread miss the point of why non-SA Leftists are cheering this victory. It's not as if we're all of the sudden putting differences aside and joining some united front, but rather we see this campaign (with its flaws of course) as nonetheless a good sign or rather a good "temperature check" of the mood of people.

The fact that a Marxist, appealing to an Occupy related activist community was able to get this much traction (which included union endorsements amongst others mind you) should be see as a good sign by the Left. Does that mean that the "transitional demands" should have been formulated differently, or that some of the rhetoric of her campaign should have been more explicit? Of course, but those critiques miss the forest through the trees in my opinion.
Also, here is Kshama Sawant's speech from last night. those wishing to paint us a social democrats should give it a listen:

xxmWhRiP8Zs

As for what our record is, first off, even in Liverpool, we have always been a minority. What we have achieved for the most part has been defensive victories, by exposing the other councillors, particularly the social democrats we have been able to, time and again, act as auxiliary to popular movements fighting against austerity. In Haninge outside of Stockholm where we have two councillors time and time again we have managed to use our position to expose coming cuts before they are made, through this tactic together with teachers, students and parents we have managed to stop cut-backs and attempted close-downs of the local schools. This is what we are elected to do to act as the voice of the struggle inside the council chambers to use our position to the full to aid the struggle taking place outside, in the streets, in the schools and in the workplaces. To shine a light on the sozis when they stab their voters in the back. You'll be amazed how a "necessary budget cut" suddenly becomes less urgent when a couple of hundred people are protesting outside. It is this struggle that will lead us to victory in the end, elected positions can only act as an auxiliary.

Sasha

18th November 2013, 16:00

Even as i clearly don't agree with the CWI/SAlt analysis under their strategy, the practical stuff crux describes is what is my experience too with "radicals" in elected opposition functions. Sure if they ever get actual power they have been already long moved to reformist or even sell out positions but as long as they are small they are great way to get speaking time on subjects, acces to (sometimes confedential) information, connections and resources (vans, copymachines, offices, pre-paid postage, meeting places etc etc). Sure if its your political position to never vote to not legitimise the circus you shouldnt do it but otherwise what's the effort? Milk them for as much as you can & denounce them when they step out of line. In fact, if the right does something they are never going to print an radical leftist critique, but if a supposed radical leftist gets critiqued from a even more radical position they will fall are over tits to give you all the air time you need. That's how the media works.

TheGodlessUtopian

18th November 2013, 17:03

"Capitalism is a 'dirty word': America’s new socialist councilmember talks to Salon" (http://www.salon.com/2013/11/18/capitalism_is_a_dirty_word_meet_the_nations_new_so cialist_councilmember/)

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2013, 17:21

As for what our record is, first off, even in Liverpool, we have always been a minority. What we have achieved for the most part has been defensive victories, by exposing the other councillors, particularly the social democrats we have been able to, time and again, act as auxiliary to popular movements fighting against austerity. In Haninge outside of Stockholm where we have two councillors time and time again we have managed to use our position to expose coming cuts before they are made, through this tactic together with teachers, students and parents we have managed to stop cut-backs and attempted close-downs of the local schools. This is what we are elected to do to act as the voice of the struggle inside the council chambers to use our position to the full to aid the struggle taking place outside, in the streets, in the schools and in the workplaces. To shine a light on the sozis when they stab their voters in the back. You'll be amazed how a "necessary budget cut" suddenly becomes less urgent when a couple of hundred people are protesting outside. It is this struggle that will lead us to victory in the end, elected positions can only act as an auxiliary.

This is completely disingenuous when you consider the time, money and resources that the CWI, in its various guises, spend on getting people elected. I find it hard to believe that you spend all those resources and time and money just so people can act as supplements to "real" struggle. If that is true, then you are guilty of incompetence! Though I suspect your appraisal of CWI electoralism is not accurate.

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2013, 17:25

Even as i clearly don't agree with the CWI/SAlt analysis under their strategy, the practical stuff crux describes is what is my experience too with "radicals" in elected opposition functions.

It is not a legitimate strategy to assign all that time and resources to something you admit is secondary and supplemental. That is an incompetent way to organise.

Crux

18th November 2013, 18:34

This is completely disingenuous when you consider the time, money and resources that the CWI, in its various guises, spend on getting people elected. I find it hard to believe that you spend all those resources and time and money just so people can act as supplements to "real" struggle. If that is true, then you are guilty of incompetence! Though I suspect your appraisal of CWI electoralism is not accurate.
And I suggest you "advising" the CWI on strategy and tactics is not genuine. Actually I am not suggesting it, I'm saying it. Are we done? Or perhaps you have a theory behind your innuendo? Another practical example of what our elected representatives do. (http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/4916) I don't expect you to agree with our position, I don't ask you too, but please don't slander by way of innuendo. Oh and another note, I have been active in the CWI for many years, if you think electoral politics is the main venue we work through you are simply deeply mistaken and unaware about the every day stuff we do.

Creative Destruction

18th November 2013, 18:37

It is not a legitimate strategy to assign all that time and resources to something you admit is secondary and supplemental. That is an incompetent way to organise.

So we've assigned all of our time and resources to "building a revolution" and where has that gotten us?

Sawant's campaign didn't run on the Communist Manifesto's planks, no, but she has been proselytizing about socialism. It's on her website, in her speeches, in her interviews. People who take a look at her campaign and says she hasn't been really hasn't been paying attention. They've just been indulging in kneejerk reactions to a socialist actually winning an election. No one was saying that Sawant was going to usher in a socialist revolution, rather that comes from a mass organization of the people. Everyone realizes that, but right now, at this point, what Sawant is doing is great. Americans don't know what socialism is, much less how to go about doing it. Having someone on a platform encouraging socialist politics in the mainstream -- which, whether you like it or not, she is -- while actually doing some immediate good for the workers of Seattle is nothing but a good thing.

This grousing that she isn't revolutionary enough is just a bunch of leftist circle jerking. You can rally around that on RevLeft, but it doesn't mean shit in the real world. If you're so goddamn worried about Sawant poisoning the well, then you get outside, go door to door and get the word out beyond your milieu. Stop fuckin' complaining that she isn't revolutionary enough for you. Start agitating. And you know what? If you actually did that, I bet Kshama Sawant would be 100% behind you.

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2013, 18:50

And I suggest you "advising" the CWI on strategy and tactics is not genuine. Actually I am not suggesting it, I'm saying it. Are we done?

No, not by a long shot.

I'm not suggesting anything to any one, I am telling you that if your organisation wastes time and resources getting people elected for secondary and supplemental purposes then your organisation is incompetent.

Or perhaps you have a theory behind your innuendo

I don't really know what you're asking me...

Another practical example of what our elected representatives do. (http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/4916)

Yes, it's another example of CWI officiandos acting like social workers fighting for scraps from the bourgeois state.

I don't expect you to agree with our position, I don't ask you too, but please don't slander by way of innuendo.

I wasn't making an innuendo, I was plainly and clearly stating what I think. I simply find it hard to believe that people would spend so much time, money and effort on something they freely admit is of secondary importance. If you are really telling me that is true, then your organisation is incompetent.

Oh and another note, I have been active in the CWI for many years, if you think electoral politics is the main venue we work through you are simply deeply mistaken and unaware about the every day stuff we do.

I don't think that. I suggest you take the time to read the posts I've made in this thread.

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2013, 18:54

So we've assigned all of our time and resources to "building a revolution" and where has that gotten us?

I don't accept that any one in the western hemisphere has assigned their time and resources to "building a revolution." Not in any coherent, consistent way.

Sawant's campaign didn't run on the Communist Manifesto's planks, no, but she has been proselytizing about socialism. It's on her website, in her speeches, in her interviews. People who take a look at her campaign and says she hasn't been really hasn't been paying attention. They've just been indulging in kneejerk reactions to a socialist actually winning an election. No one was saying that Sawant was going to usher in a socialist revolution, rather that comes from a mass organization of the people. Everyone realizes that, but right now, at this point, what Sawant is doing is great. Americans don't know what socialism is, much less how to go about doing it. Having someone on a platform encouraging socialist politics in the mainstream -- which, whether you like it or not, she is -- while actually doing some immediate good for the workers of Seattle is nothing but a good thing.

This grousing that she isn't revolutionary enough is just a bunch of leftist circle jerking. You can rally around that on RevLeft, but it doesn't mean shit in the real world. If you're so goddamn worried about Sawant poisoning the well, then you get outside, go door to door and get the word out beyond your milieu. Stop fuckin' complaining that she isn't revolutionary enough for you. Start agitating. And you know what? If you actually did that, I bet Kshama Sawant would be 100% behind you.

None of this relates to anything I have said.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

18th November 2013, 19:15

Yes, I understand that it's politically expedient. It's not that I need you to spell out your justification to me, what I need you to explain is how your conception of revolutionary practice is going to achieve communism.

Well for one thing, what I see from Sawant's critics seems no more feasible a strategy on face value. I think workers organizing around pushing for an issue can include, as one of many tactics, electoral politics and is fine as a way of building a political base in an area. I think it's useful because it breaks the monopoly of the Democratic party on a lot of these issues.

That's the incorrect analysis. Yes, you are correct, you can physically do both of these things at the same time. The question is: Why? If you are correctly mobilising and organising within communities and building a counter-power that is acting for itself, why would you need electoral politics?
Having a candidate who is responsive to the working class amplifies one's power. Look at the way all the Democrats opportunistically seized on the $15 minimum wage as an issue once it was pushed for by a candidate to their left.

The meaning of the phrase is: "A person who comes to the aid of another in a gallant and courteous manner." How is that description and your description different?

This goes back to my point about how we conceive revolutionary practice. Your view is that a revolutionary socialist must come to the aid of the downtrodden worker (the damsel in distress), pushing an anti-big business agenda (the dragon) for fairness and a little more equality; to establish allies of the workers, to work in their interests in the big, scary halls of government

You conceive the revolutionary as a social worker doing whatever they can do to improve the lives of workers and not as a political militant. That's fine. If you want to help give a worker more money from the surplus value they create, that's all fine and well. Who doesn't want a higher wage?

But how does that relate to revolutionary strategy? How is that assisting your long term objective of seizing the means of production? How is handing over responsibility to someone else building class unity and solidarity amongst communities? How does it build class consciousness? How is it advancing your ultimate goal of creating a communist society?

These are genuine questions and they are questions that should be the fundamental basis of any decision that a revolutionary communist makes in regards to tactics and strategy. Just doing something because it improves the lives of workers is not an adequate basis. If you want to do that, join a charity. We are here to overthrow reality. That is our mission, as dramatic as it sounds, and we have to take it seriously.

Ultimately, electoral politics is about the immediate prize and is not about building class consciousness, class unity and class solidarity, therefore making it a massive waste of resources and time.
I guess I just don't see being in the halls of congress and fighting as a militant on the street are necessarily mutually exclusive. Again, I have the historical examples of various members of the German SDP which never betrayed their working class ideology and participated, during their lifetimes, in both a vibrant working class movement and in various militant revolutionary struggles. I do think it can be a part of a wider struggle to build class consciousness.

As for the "knight in shining armor" - I think that only applies when the "Savior" is external, or is someone alienated from the broader movement. I don't think a political candidate necessarily needs to be alienated from their electorate, though that is the case with bourgeois candidates obviously.

The doctor doesn't have to be an anarchist, they just have to want to give free healthcare. The fact you used the prefix "anarchist" to describe this doctor demonstrates further the kind of political myopia that accompanies electoral politics.

This isn't about ideology. It's about building the necessary components for achieving a counter-power. If you have an organisation of people who are providing free healthcare, taking risks to secure prescriptions and defending each other from state persecution, you have achieved more (or equal in your view) than you could being elected into office. At the same time you have built solidarity, consciousness and unity, three things you cannot do from a government office.
First off, I don't think that they're mutually exclusive struggles. Second off, I have yet to hear of any kind of radical, revolutionary health network that has the breadth or reach of the British NHS, Cuban state health care, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, etc. It's not that one shouldn't struggle through those means, it's just that those means often don't have the same kind of reach.

Anyways, I think as far as such bottom up efforts are concerned it's often helpful to have a friend in powerful places.

No. I'm asking you. You are defending this tactic, so it is your responsibility as a socialist to explain what your broader strategy is.
Well I know my broader strategy would be to continue to organize with workers on the street to build a bigger movement. I would use any allied elected officials as (1) a bully pulpit to proclaim the issues that the Left has with an issue and (2) to propose any reforms that the working class movement demands (the elected officials must be responsive to bottom up demands).

You said: "Perhaps Socialist Alternative's platform in this election is equivalent to that of a social democrat party, but unlike a social democrat party there's no indication that they limit themselves"

My criticism was that this is a contradiction, since you also agree that electoral politics is limiting, which by default means that Socialist Alternative are limiting themselves. I think that was a perfectly fair criticism to make.

Obviously, your response to this is that we can do all the tactics at the same time, which means we aren't limited. The problem with that, as I've articulated, is that you seem to think that doing lots of tactics is the basis for good policy, where as I am saying that good policy is doing that which will contribute to a long term strategy and an overall objective. I.e. building class unity, solidarity and consciousness to establish a counter-power. Doing anything that won't achieve those things is a waste of time, money and resources.

I wonder, incidentally, how much money Sawant spent on her campaign. I wonder how much time people committed to getting her elected. That, in my view, is a profoundly misplaced allocation of resources.
I think electoral strategies are only limited when (1) they are seen as the END, not one of many MEANS, and (2) they are taken as a primary means.

I don't think it's about doing "all tactics at once" but by building a broad movement that includes the masses, students, workers, journalists, academics and other militants who make demands on the street, through publications and through electoral politics.

As far as I know, her campaign was run on a fairly thin budget and it was a lot of grassroots activism that got her elected.

I don't really care whether it makes someone less socialist. I am not interested in such petty, reductive arguments. My concern is tactics and strategy.
Yes on that note you deserve more credit than others on this thread.

Why do you think that was? Do you think the state and capital were being benevolent?
No.

You said: "reforms get pushed through, it alleviates the suffering of the working class and validates their struggle, while if it doesn't, it objectively proves the limits of the bourgeois state and reveals the need to move beyond it."

I asked for an example. You gave me the 8 hour day and social security. Neither of those examples were "pushed through reforms," they were responses to mass mobilisation, direct action and/or profound economic crisis. Elected officials didn't get elected into office on the basis of creating social security and the 8 hour day, elected officials did those things to avoid outright class conflict.

What your examples are good for is actually showing up the falsity behind the statement "proves the limits of the bourgeois state and reveals the need to move beyond it." Actually, what happened was that movements dissipated once those reforms had been enacted, which of course was precisely why they were enacted. Far from revealing the limits of the bourgeois state and the need to move beyond them, they reaffirmed the misconception that the bourgeois state is a tool for good. Why do you think the Labour Party was founded?

Whether you are doing it consciously or not, you seem to be arguing that the bourgeois state acts for the interests of the class...The basis of the flaw in Leninism.
The 8 hour work day, minimum wage and social security needed to be instantiated through legal means at some point though to become laws of the land. You're right that working class power dissapated after those reforms, but I don't think it was ONLY the fact that they became legal. I DO think the working class movement should learn from that historical weakening once they got these reforms. They let their eyes get off the ball.

A significant part of the problem was that thanks to the American Democratic Party's monopoly on "Leftwing politics" it was effectively able to steal those issues by making them a part of its program. They were able to do this because their radical party competition on the left - the American socialists and CPUSA were a collapsed party and a discredited party respectively. Socialist Alternative on the other hand is pushing this issue as a response to the Occupy movement. There was also WW2 and the natural patriotic upsurge, then the McCarthyist era. It's not exactly like the time immediately following the New Deal was a good era for leftwing radicalism to flourish either.

That's a total reduction of my argument. It's not a question of holding off on political activity. I am clearly not proposing activity that only immediately brings some kind of social revolution...

What I am saying is we should do different political activity that builds class consciousness, class unity and class solidarity by creating solutions that pose a conflict with institutions of capital and the state and escalate class conflict.

Any tactic or strategy that does not achieve those things should be abandoned immediately.I agree - I guess I just don't think of getting an official elected as something which doesn't build class consciousness, at least if the candidate in question comes out of a mass movement and once elected really genuinely tries to make themselves beholden to and connected with their class.

The main thing that prevents electoral politics from being liberating is the alienation between the candidate and the working masses - alienation that becomes manifest whenever the candidate pushes some reform that goes against the class interests of the bourgeoisie. This alienation isn't necessary however.

Speaking in terms of what ultimately matters as far as that city council election goes. The really sad part about all of these attacks on the Sawant campaign from the left is that only good is going to come out of her being elected.

IMO one of the few things that historically have kept socialists in political power more honest are criticisms from those on the left. I just think that the criticisms people are making are too extreme and are a little unfair. But we should not be uncritical of any Socialist in office, based on historical experience.

I have a Daniel De Leon pamphlet around here someplace where he makes the point that if a socialist should find themselves elected to a bourgeois political body, they should use it as a platform to propagandize for socialist revolution and not to enact reforms.

It's an interesting point but IMO if the working class is agitating for certain reforms, and those reforms make sense within the material interests of the working class, then the most honest thing a socialist in political office can do is respect those wishes.

There are numerous liberal and social democratic parties that have "realistic goals that are actually relevant to the interests of working people in" *insert location here*. That's the problem, as the article I linked suggested, Sawant merely "Out- Democrated the Democrats". Here goals aren't socialistic, they aren't "transitional demands", but they are fully acceptable among most liberals and social democrats. Maybe she is a "socialist", but her lack of calling for socialism, of explaining it, is pure opportunism.

Rent control is actually well outside of the mainstream in this current political climate. As is a millionaire's tax.

I don't think her lack of calling for socialism is opportunism. I think it would be ... overselling it, to put it mildly, to argue that one city council member could bring the socialist revolution. On the contrary, not calling for socialism as one's electoral platform just seems like honesty.

A lot of liberals happen to think they're socialists, which is quite evident from many on this website.
That is a petty and childish accusation. You have accused people of being not only social democrats but "liberals" and "petty bourgeois" when they aren't. There's a legitimate debate to be had here but you seem more concerned with attacking people's character. I don't question your motives how about you do the same favor to those you're arguing with?

I'm not against reforms, and not against a raise in the minimum wage. I am against how this opportunist Sawant believes she can dupe the working class into believing she can raise their standard of living just by voting. Fuck that, reforms come from the direct struggle of the working class.Where does Mrs Sawant say that? I've asked repeatedly where Mrs Sawant OR Socialist Alternative says that electoral politics alone, or more specifically the election of one candidate, can realize revolutionary goals.

The criticism you haven't addressed yet is the argument that she is a working class person who has struggled with working class people and is making demands that came out of those struggles. You're right to say that they're not even transitional demands, but they are demands which the working class themselves have rallied around and struggled for, and campaigning for her was just a part of that struggle.

Sasha

18th November 2013, 19:21

It is not a legitimate strategy to assign all that time and resources to something you admit is secondary and supplemental. That is an incompetent way to organise.

Obviously we "ultra-left"s shouldnt spend time nor resources on getting people ellected, but uf trots or radical greens do it anyway it maybe might be more useful to have an occasional friendly chat with them and work together on topic based activism than slagging them from day one.

Crux

18th November 2013, 19:28

No, not by a long shot.

I'm not suggesting anything to any one, I am telling you that if your organisation wastes time and resources getting people elected for secondary and supplemental purposes then your organisation is incompetent. Based on your deeply flawed criteria.

I don't really know what you're asking me...
Let me make it clear for you then: You are implying that there is supposedly some secret other reason why we run in elections, since according to you we are so bad at it.

Yes, it's another example of CWI officiandos acting like social workers fighting for scraps from the bourgeois state.
Ah yes, fuck local communities and fuck defensive struggles and fuck fightingattacks that are actually directed squarely at the worker's and poor. Fighting those attacks is just "begging for scraps", doing it while holding an elected position is the same as being a "social worker", because everybody know struggle is just a tiny self-contained unit concerned with a single issue and engaging in struggle isn't really engaging in struggle, it is the same as being a "social worker". Pray tell from where did this brilliant analysis of struggle come from?

I wasn't making an innuendo, I was plainly and clearly stating what I think. I simply find it hard to believe that people would spend so much time, money and effort on something they freely admit is of secondary importance. If you are really telling me that is true, then your organisation is incompetent.
And if I am lying there is a sinister submotive. Nice, TAT. So do you feel this circular logic is helping or hurting your argument?

I don't think that. I suggest you take the time to read the posts I've made in this thread. Is the argument you are making overly long and complex? In that case feel free to direct me to the post where you explain your position in more detail then.

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2013, 19:45

Based on your deeply flawed criteria.

My criteria is based on allocating time, money and resources to strategies that will be effective in building class power. If you think that criteria is flawed, then that would certainly explain why you have your views.

Let me make it clear for you then: You are implying that there is supposedly some secret other reason why we run in elections, since according to you we are so bad at it.

No, I'm not implying that at all. I'm also not saying you're bad at running elections. If I am implying anything it is that the reality of CWI strategy is that electoralism is not secondary or supplemental. But I am happy to accept that claim. I don't care whether you're a social democrat or whether you're incompetent. You can take your pick.

Ah yes, fuck local communities and fuck defensive struggles and fuck fightingattacks that are actually directed squarely at the worker's and poor.

I am not of the opinion that criticising the CWI is tantamount to saying "fuck local communities."

Fighting those attacks is just "begging for scraps", doing it while holding an elected position is the same as being a "social worker", because everybody know struggle is just a tiny self-contained unit concerned with a single issue and engaging in struggle isn't really engaging in struggle, it is the same as being a "social worker". Pray tell from where did this brilliant analysis of struggle come from?

That's not really my analysis. That's an imaginary analysis that you just invented for the sake of this incoherent, sarcastic paragraph.

And if I am lying there is a sinister submotive. Nice, TAT. So do you feel this circular logic is helping or hurting your argument?

I've not accused you of lying.

Is the argument you are making overly long and complex? In that case feel free to direct me to the post where you explain your position in more detail then.

Here you go. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2688431&postcount=182)

I must say, the CWI members in this thread have really demonstrated how good they are taking criticism.

Decolonize The Left

18th November 2013, 19:47

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2013, 19:47

Obviously we "ultra-left"s shouldnt spend time nor resources on getting people ellected, but uf trots or radical greens do it anyway it maybe might be more useful to have an occasional friendly chat with them and work together on topic based activism than slagging them from day one.

One of the problems with the left is the way they equate criticism with "slagging off." I have made perfectly reasonable criticisms of their strategies. The kind of criticisms that should be made.

I am happy to chat with Trots and Greens on the topic of "activism", but that will and should come from the basis that their strategy is a waste of time, money and resources.

Art Vandelay

18th November 2013, 20:13

Where does Mrs Sawant say that? I've asked repeatedly where Mrs Sawant OR Socialist Alternative says that electoral politics alone, or more specifically the election of one candidate, can realize revolutionary goals.

She hasn't and neither has the CWI. The message has always been clear on the ground, that post election day we need to continue to mobilize communities if we want our demands realized. That was the best thing to come of the campaign in my opinion, the fact that we are now in continued contact with many more working class communities.

The criticism you haven't addressed yet is the argument that she is a working class person who has struggled with working class people and is making demands that came out of those struggles. You're right to say that they're not even transitional demands, but they are demands which the working class themselves have rallied around and struggled for, and campaigning for her was just a part of that struggle.

Once again I'd like to point out that criticizing the campaign for putting forth minimum demands is absurd. The CWI is a Trotskyist organization and the Transitional Program contains not only transitional demands, but also minimum demands.

ckaihatsu

18th November 2013, 20:42

[Y]ou are defending their ideas and their actions, so if you don't understand how this fits into a long term strategy, on what basis are you supporting it?

I realized last night why no one's been providing an answer to your "What's the long-term strategy here?" question -- it's because the *query* itself is a misnomer, to be technical about it. It's like asking "When is terrorism ever going to stop?", because in both instances one is mixing up strategies-and-tactics with the more-enduring level of politics and platforms.

(The objective hierarchy is politics --> platform --> strategies --> tactics --> logistics.)

So one strategy and/or tactic may be a completely separate 'project' from anything else undertaken -- it might be a better approach to say "What's the *next* strategy, or what's the *next* tactic?".

Five Year Plan

18th November 2013, 21:18

This thread is hilarious and is the best testimony to the failure of the left that I can think of. What this thread proves is that the left has no overall strategy for combating capitalism, a fact which proves the success of the system at dividing and conquering. Make note that there need not be an overall 'plan,' but that strategies so basic such as diversity of tactics and mutual support ought be cornerstones of any populist movement.

Some of us on this forum don't want to re-invent the wheel by establishing a class-collaborationist "populist movement" that grows large precisely because it buries talk of revolutionary class struggle beneath amorphous constructions about the "99%" and "economic justice." Some of us want to advance a revolutionary socialist movement, which requires we talk about inconvenient topics like revolution, who will make that revolution (the working class against capitalism), and how it will happen (not through bourgeois elections). Maybe many of the disagreements in this thread reflect disagreement at this very basic level, with many people thinking that building a large class-collaborationist movement is a necessary destination on the path to revolution. A history of similar movements, including the incredibly powerful Populist-Progressive movement here in the USA at the turn of the twentieth century, which included large chunks of the old Socialist Party of America, demonstrates exactly where this path actually leads.

Once again I'd like to point out that criticizing the campaign for putting forth minimum demands is absurd. The CWI is a Trotskyist organization and the Transitional Program contains not only transitional demands, but also minimum demands.

It is silly to criticize the campaign for fighting for minimum reforms. It is correct, however, to criticize it for not following the transitional method. The purpose of the transitional method is to situate the struggle for immediate reforms within the context of a relatively concrete long-term vision of how struggle can unfold toward the goal of socialist revolution.

The point of employing the method at the present moment should be to strengthen movements for reforms by situating them within the longer term vision which, by structuring those struggles for immediate reforms around a project aimed at toppling the source of workers' grievances, would make the reforms the most likely to be achieved. It also helps build cadre by attracting people who are already receptive to the message of revolution, or people who are attracted to the idea of the transitional measures but who doesn't see any other groups articulating these demands and hadn't connected them to revolutionary politics before. The overall process entails an emphasis on propaganda over agitation, which coincides with organizing the workers already won over into a revolutionary organization.

The explicit goal informing both the immediate demands and the propaganda for transitional demands is workers' socialist revolution. Without this goal being made explicit, and Sawant has not made it explicit in any of the literature I've seen her campaign put out, workers hearing anything about either immediate reforms or even transitional demands are still likely to grasp them within the electoralist-reformist mindset that is so pervasive today. At best, this makes the impact of propaganda for transitional measures (like taking the top 500 corporations under public ownership) muddled and contradictory in their practical implications, since workers drawn to them will still carry illusions, perhaps even stronger illusions, about how those measures can be realized through electoral, non-revolutionary behavior.

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2013, 21:20

ckaihatsu

18th November 2013, 21:40

I realized last night why no one's been providing an answer to your "What's the long-term strategy here?" question -- it's because the *query* itself is a misnomer, to be technical about it. It's like asking "When is terrorism ever going to stop?", because in both instances one is mixing up strategies-and-tactics with the more-enduring level of politics and platforms.

(The objective hierarchy is politics --> platform --> strategies --> tactics --> logistics.)

No. It's a very simple question and if you can't answer it simply then you there is fundamental problem.

Well, to *contribute* an answer -- though I'm not affiliated with SA or CWI -- I'd say that Sawant has gone as far to the right as any socialist should or ought, and so everything from here on out should definitely be to the *left* of anything electoralist or reformist.

DND was on-point in post #185 with the reference to De Leonism and how an actual elected position should be used.

So one strategy and/or tactic may be a completely separate 'project' from anything else undertaken -- it might be a better approach to say "What's the *next* strategy, or what's the *next* tactic?".

So basically you're making it up as you go along?

I'm not affiliated with Sawant or the campaign in any way, so that makes your question sheerly hypothetical.

Popular Front of Judea

18th November 2013, 22:31

A history of similar movements, including the incredibly powerful Populist-Progressive movement here in the USA at the turn of the twentieth century, which included large chunks of the old Socialist Party of America, demonstrates exactly where this path actually leads.

So where does this path lead? As far as I know the Socialist Party, IWW etc. were suppressed in the domestic repression that accompanied WWI and the red scare that followed. Do you actually believe that history is going to repeat itself?

Ceallach_the_Witch

18th November 2013, 22:53

I don't have too much opinion on the Sawant campaign, to be honest but I think I'll take the gloomily pragmatic view that it's better than nothing. She might be a social democrat (not that I'm familiar with her policies) but surely this demonstrates that there has been at least some resurgence in ideas that are "of the left" so to speak - even if it is the reformist left. I know it's probably a cliche to say this, but rather than bickering amongst ourselves (we have plenty of opportunities to do that in any case) and deriding Sawant's policies we should at least move to exploit a climate where vaguely socialistic ideals are being thought about again. It might not represent anything particularly exciting at the moment - but surely the election of someone paying some service to leftist ideals helps to erode the right-wing assertions that socialism is a totally moribund political force (even if it's "socialism" not socialism)

E:

and i say this as someone who much prefers organisations that get to the point and demand the immediate abolition of wage labour and all that other stuff.

Sea

18th November 2013, 22:57

Leftsolidarity

18th November 2013, 23:41

This whole thread makes me want to jab my eyes out.

When someone can actually criticize a non-white openly socialist woman who received support from mass working class organizations (like the unions) running against a democrat along these positions:

Living wages, union jobs, healthcare, public education

You know they don't understand the situation of the political landscape nor the struggles of the broad working class in this country. Or they don't give a shit about the working class and would rather sit around talking about how we won't have full communism tomorrow.

I don't think anyone thinks that this will usher in a socialist era so that strawman could have stopped being used like 8 pages ago.

I also don't assume as some in this thread seem to that the working masses are so ignorant and unintelligent that they just decided to vote for her because she 'bribed' them with campaign promises or that they haven't had any discussions between each other about who she is, what party she's from, what she says, and thinking about why she says those things. They might not write a paper about it but it probably wasn't just a bunch of people mindlessly checking a random box.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

18th November 2013, 23:42

This whole thread makes me want to jab my eyes out.

When someone can actually criticize a non-white, openly socialist, woman who received support from mass working class organizations (like the unions) running against a democrat along these positions:

You know they don't understand the situation of the political landscape nor the struggles of the broad working class in this country. Or they don't give a shit about the working class and would rather sit around talking about how we won't have full communism tomorrow.

I don't think anyone thinks that this will usher in a socialist era so that strawman could have stopped being used like 8 pages ago.

I also don't assume as some in this thread seem to that the working masses are so ignorant and unintelligent that they just decided to vote for her because she 'bribed' them with campaign promises or that they haven't had any discussions between each other about who she is, what party she's from, what she says, and thinking about why she says those things. They might not write a paper about it but it probably wasn't just a bunch of people mindlessly checking a random box.

I make 23$ an hour, and that's barely a "living wage". Let alone 15$.

Catma

18th November 2013, 23:49

As someone broken of illusions in reformism in part by SA organizers at my campus, I can attest that they focus on non-electoral campaigns All. The. Time. And always with the emphasis that the system cannot be reformed but must be replaced through revolution.

That said, TAT is bringing up a valid question and not getting an answer. I actually have the same question, though I will offer up some theories later. Sawant missed a pretty big opportunity in her MSNBC interview to take a direct shot at Capitalism, and to define an alternative, which is troubling.

But that's the only time I've heard her drop the ball. There's plenty like this:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/longshot-winner-seattle-city-council-seat-warns-st/nbwhK/

Sawant doesn't pull punches when it comes to large corporations. She was critical of Boeing's threat to move jobs out of state, if it didn't get tax breaks and wage concessions.
Sawant said, "If they insisted on doing this, that will be nothing short of economic terrorism."
The councilmember elect said the only response to reject what she called "blackmail" is to tell Boeing's CEO if you want to go, you can go.
Sawant added, "The machines are here, the workers are here. Let us take this entire productive activity into democratic public ownership and retool the machines to produce mass transit."

Yeah ok, that's reformism lols. I'm sure the US military would take no action if Sawant mobilized SA sympathizers and union members to do that. Most of the stuff Sawant says is like this.

Now on to a potential answer. When workers fight for reforms that are meaningful to them and win, it increases their awareness of their own power and the power of organizing outside the system. Sawant has said repeatedly that she can accomplish very little alone, and that any gains will come from workers mobilizing.

TAT thinks an abnormally large amount of resources was put into this. In terms of money, he's gotta be right... but in terms of effort, I don't think so.

However, I don't think this money would exist if not for the electoral campaign. Would you get this amount of money begging for donations for general socialist agitation, or single-issue organizing? And I don't think a similar amount could be spent as effectively (to raise class consciousness and put forth Socialism as a real alternative) if not for the electoral campaign. How much does it generally cost to have MSNBC ask you seriously what the alternative to Capitalism looks like?

SA puts plenty of efforts into other campaigns, but can all the leftists on this site name even one (besides occupy homes which has been mentioned in this thread)? If even we haven't heard about them, do you think the general public has? Is that a good use of effort, comparatively? Or is it that people think raising class consciousness is not a worthwhile goal? If so, what is the point of socialist organizing? Revolution or bust?

If SA ditches socialist rhetoric completely for electoral gains or stability, then you can call them reformist. When Sawant acts as if she herself has handed out reforms, instead of helping to organize campaigns, then condemn her.

All this said, I would still like to hear SA members or sympathizers elaborate on the usefulness of pursuing electoral politics, and the overall plan of action.

Creative Destruction

19th November 2013, 00:02

I make 23$ an hour, and that's barely a "living wage". Let alone 15$.

are you supporting a family? $15 is a living wage for all singles and most couples. this all also depends on the local cost of living of where you live?

blake 3:17

19th November 2013, 00:09

Leftsolidarity

19th November 2013, 00:22

I make 23$ an hour, and that's barely a "living wage". Let alone 15$.

Was that supposed to be a response to what I said?

You seem to be replying to things without reading them for roughly 11 pages now.

Popular Front of Judea

19th November 2013, 00:23

Finally the long awaited LLCO (Third World Maoist) response to Sawant's win:

Some of social-democratic left in the USA see her victory as a major event. The reality is that her victory does not matter much for real revolution. The entire discussion is a diversion from real revolution.

Firstly, the politics of organizations like “Socialist Alternative” are not outside the realm of the leftwing of the Democratic Party. Similarly, the one “socialist” at the federal level, Congressman Bernie Sanders is effectively part of the Democratic Party. The politics being elected are nothing revolutionary, nothing communist. It is politics of the type found within the typical First Worldist activist left. It is a politics that seeks to reform the system from within, not a politics that demands sweeping away the Old Power. Electoral politics is not a path to revolution, it can only achieve reform at best. Revolution is about abolishing the old institutions of power, not acquiring power within them in order to change them from within. Revolution is about the creation of New Power, alternative, Leading Light institutions in order to contend with and destroy the Old Power. In fact, those who push reformism end up diverting revolutionary energy in the wrong direction. It can even benefit the system to have the appearance of diversity and dissent.

Secondly, Sawant’s victory signals very little. The victory does not even signal a significant turn within the United States toward social-democratic politics. The victory occurred in the very liberal city of Seattle. It is not something that will be repeated elsewhere in a significant way. Social Democrats describing themselves as “socialists” of one kind or another have been elected from time to time to school boards and other municipal posts, these are quirks more than anything.

Thirdly, who cares? Extending the privileges of First World peoples is not, for the most part, aiding the struggle of the global poor, the global proletariat. The First World does not contain a significant base for revolution. The First World population is overwhelmingly part of the global bourgeoisie. Extending more social-democratic to First World populations is almost always at the expense of the global poor, the proletariat in the Third World. Real revolution is about dismantling the First World, not contending for greater power and privileges within it. There may be democratic struggles that revolutionaries engage in within a First World context, but those should be seen as means to a greater end, not as ends in themselves. It may even be useful to infiltrate and subvert the state from within, but Sawant’s victory does not represent this kind of line.

Fourthly, instead of channeling resources to elect social democrats to extend the privileges of the First World peoples, real revolutionaries direct their energy toward building the organization, the New Power, the discipline, the leadership, the revolutionary science necessary to initiate the next wave of global people’s war. Real socialists, real communists, are Leading Light Communists who selflessly dedicate themselves to liberating the global poor in the Third World as a step toward liberation of all of the Earth. Leading Lights seek a whole new world of total liberation: a world of peace, justice, sustainability, equality, beauty, a world without any oppression. This kind of world will not be legislated from the city councils and school boards of the First World. It will be created by the global poor, the real proletariat in the Third World led by the most advanced revolutionary science of Leading Light Communism

http://llco.org/on-sawants-victory-in-seattle-usa/

I guess all of us privileged bourgeois First Worlders have been put on notice huh?

Sasha

19th November 2013, 01:11

The hubris.... The 3th world is the only revolutionary force but we, the leading lights from the west, will write their program! All to the rescue of the noble brown people! Orientalism of the worst kind... Puke.

A Revolutionary Tool

19th November 2013, 01:35

A socialist opposition figure in a city council, how horrible! She hasn't even done anything yet and the criticism comes piling on. As ckaihatsu said, what's important about the election is the strategy and tactics that come about as a result of the win. The city council seat does not have much power, Sawant isn't going to make miracles, she is one person on a council of bourgoeis politicians. But have we forgotten the platform elections give us? Inroads into working class neighborhoods have been made, socialist ideas have been spread and expressed politically. Does Sawant have the illusions that socialism will be brought to Seattle by voting for her? I don't think so, if you read some of her tweets she's said that if the city council doesn't adopt a $15 minimum wage soon that there would be protests of tens of thousands organized. Now this doesn't sound like someone who thinks that getting voted into office is going to change everything, that she simply went around going "vote for me and your dreams will come true". This(an oppositional force in the government) can be used to further the class struggle in ways just like that. Maybe we should see what she does with that seat before we all jump on her accusing her of being this or that though.

blake 3:17

19th November 2013, 02:26

DaringMehring

19th November 2013, 02:55

The criticism of CWI/SocAlt here is nuts.

Does Kshama Sawant's election equal the beginning of the revolution? No. Duh. But, as Lao-zi said, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

A City Council seat in a major city is not a small prize to the capitalists. It is something they care about. To be able to challenge for one, requires an impressive operation, and I say that as someone with experience in that regard. Soc Alt showed some major organizing ability -- and in the process, knocked on thousands of doors with the message of socialism, with attacks on the fakers of the Democratic Party, split unions from the Democratic Party.

That is huge! That alone is success. But to actually win? For 90k people to vote for an avowed socialist? Off the scale.

Soc Alt are not Social Democrats. They're Trotskyists with their own perspective. Kshama Sawant conveys the message of socialism. In his interviews, you will see her speak of the failures of capitalism, of the workers producing all the wealth of society, which is taken from them by the capitalists, of needing a society that aims to work for everyone. That is relevant and that is socialist.

Some of these critiques are really too much. They are supposedly making a petit-bourgeois deviation by calling the Democrats a "Party of big business." News flash -- today, in America, "big business," "the bourgeoisie," "the super-rich," and "capitalists" are all used more or less interchangeably except that the first one is the most common.

Yes her rhetoric could be refined, but, it's not like any socialist group has much practice in using a national spotlight (except the moth-bitten CPUSA which shouldn't even be mentioned).

As usual, the Spart has the best criticism, but is trying to turn the lesson of a particular historical circumstance into a universal. Not dialectical. The Left Coms are going on, but they're from a tendency that thought the Bolsheviks were right-wing deviants so it is hard to take them seriously. CWI/SocAlt follows Trotsky and Lenin, who led the Party at the head of the only victorious socialist revolution ever. I'll take that tradition over Left Com, anarcho-communist, and all other traditions of failure.

I have to say, CWI/SocAlt has impressed me a lot. I am seriously considering joining in the next couple days. Threads like this certainly help convince me!

Creative Destruction

19th November 2013, 03:10

You know, at first I thought it was going to be the Keyboard Communists who would really bring Sawant down rather than any conservatives that may complain about her. But then I realized, by virtue of being Keyboard Communists, they ensure (and are probably aware of) their own irrelevancy.

blake 3:17

19th November 2013, 03:30

For people hating on the $15 minimum wage, this is from today:

In fact, Walmart’s President and CEO, Bill Simon, recently estimated that the majority of its one million associates make less than $25,000 per year, just above the federal poverty line of $23,550 for a family of four. When the Washington DC city council passed a living wage bill requiring Walmart to pay workers a minimum of $12.50 per hour, the chain threatened to shut down its new stores if Mayor Vincent Gray didn’t veto the bill. Gray vetoed the bill.

Decolonize The Left

19th November 2013, 03:30

Some of us on this forum don't want to re-invent the wheel by establishing a class-collaborationist "populist movement" that grows large precisely because it buries talk of revolutionary class struggle beneath amorphous constructions about the "99%" and "economic justice." Some of us want to advance a revolutionary socialist movement, which requires we talk about inconvenient topics like revolution, who will make that revolution (the working class against capitalism), and how it will happen (not through bourgeois elections). Maybe many of the disagreements in this thread reflect disagreement at this very basic level, with many people thinking that building a large class-collaborationist movement is a necessary destination on the path to revolution. A history of similar movements, including the incredibly powerful Populist-Progressive movement here in the USA at the turn of the twentieth century, which included large chunks of the old Socialist Party of America, demonstrates exactly where this path actually leads.

I understand this. I will expand a bit upon my previous post:
I think that you should employ whatever strategy you feel is best to work towards a working-class revolution and the overthrow of the capitalist system. I think that if you feel as though elections are hogwash then that's totally fine and you should mobilize whatever working class folks you can on that platform. I will support your efforts 100%.
Likewise, I think that folks like the CWI should employ their strategies for working class mobilization and that may include elections. I will support them 100% so long as their political platform remains in the interest of the working class.

My point to you is that your position regarding the OP and the issue at hand is strategically inept. It may be morally and philosophically consistent depending upon your political philosophy (hell, I may even agree with the majority of it), but it is strategically unsound and therefore ought be discarded as an argument. No one is holding this election up as a "reinvention of the wheel" (your words). I understand your objections to this election but your view is too narrow and betrays an utter lack of vision and perspective. This election is simply another avenue of action and one which you don't find very prudent or productive. But that is your opinion, and one which I respect, but one among many.

There are two truths at play here:
1) Revolutionary leftism is largely marginalized and hence revolutionary leftists betray attitudes consistent with marginalized communities: self-destruction, self-division, bickering, etc... We turn against each other in order to feel powerful because we cannot complete our goal in a larger context.
2) Strategy trumps political moralizing/bickering: it is strategically valuable to the left to have this election end as it did. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the failure of the left that we cannot put strategy ahead of our egos and personal disagreements. Until we do, we will lose this war.

Remus Bleys

19th November 2013, 03:36

servusmoderni

19th November 2013, 03:43

There's no winning here. She's a liberal Trotskyist.

When the Bourgeois class approves of your nomination, there's no way you're making a revolution.

Social reforms is not how you reach true socialism.

A Revolutionary Tool

19th November 2013, 03:49

Creative Destruction

19th November 2013, 03:49

right back at you CUSP
edit: implying left comss on revleft aren't active. were probably more active than youll ever be.

Not all, but a few of the left comms on here act like spoiled children. Revolutionary than thou and tearing down anyone else who doesn't fall exactly in line with them.

Creative Destruction

19th November 2013, 03:51

The bourgoeis class approved of Sawant when?

Some small business owners in Seattle endorsed her campaign.

Leo Tyszka

19th November 2013, 04:04

I have been following this thread for a while while lurking this forum for a couple months (just made an account) and I'm going to put in my two cents.

First I'm kind of disheartened. Both side in this are acting in way that prevent actual discussion and debate. I think we should stop with the name calling (Social Democrat/liberal and Keyboard Communist bullshit). While I am generally an abstentionist, I would be interested in hearing more about what, like The Anarchist Tension had been asking, how does Dr. Sawant's campaign fit into longer term strategy with in the context of Seattle and in the US (since it wasn't the only campaign in SAlt ran in the US)? Since SAlt put a lot of time and resources into this campaign there has to be a bigger picture that this campaign fits into. I am very interested in seeing what members of SAlt/CWI on revleft have to say about this. I know links have been given to what elected members of the CWI have done in other countries, but I'm curious about the plans for the US.

Also like The Anarchist Tension, I don't think it is useful to launch accusations that Sawant is a social democrat, left democrat, or whatever. Even though I think the campaign seemed like it was trying to play it safe, this way of discussion will just devolve into childish shit throwing like it had in this thread. Individuals, who argue that participation in elections, now have their chance in the US to prove that it is indeed a viable and useful tactic.

Leftsolidarity

19th November 2013, 04:11

This was posted by a friend of mine on Facebook and I thought it was a great outlook on the election. I'd give more credit but I prefer not to drop names.

What is significant about the election of Kshama Sawant to the Seattle City Council?

First let us be clear about what it is not. Sawant's group, Socialist Alternative, is not in any way revolutionary or socialist. It is a typical social democratic tendency that covers itself with a thin 'leftist' Trotskyist veneer. They are hostile to Cuba, viciously anti-Korea, and play the game of plague on both your houses in regard to Syria, to give a few examples.

With that said, within the context of U.S. imperialist politics, the election of a woman of color, an immigrant, a self-described socialist, on a program of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, is of course wholly progressive.

What is important for revolutionaries to take away from this development? We can and must be bold about speaking in the name of socialism. There is more space open to for red forces to use the electoral campaign tool to spread an anti-capitalist message (while taking care not to spread electoral illusions among the masses or in our own ranks).

More significant and worthy of study is the election of Chokwe Lumumba as Mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, on a People's Assembly platform.

Remus Bleys

19th November 2013, 04:19

This was posted by a friend of mine on Facebook and I thought it was a great outlook on the election. I'd give more credit but I prefer not to drop names."They're social democrats because they don't worship Cuba and North Korea!" this can stand on its own.

Obama is a person of color, and Thatcher was a woman. Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist. Tons of democrats argue for a $15 hr minimum wage. Does that make them "progressive"?

Meaning > Words. Are people comfortable with the meaning of socialism, or the word itself?

"More significant and worthy of study is the election of Chokwe Lumumba as Mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, on a People's Assembly platform" is the WWP? lmao

Two Buck Chuck

19th November 2013, 04:23

What is significant about the election of Kshama Sawant to the Seattle City Council?

First let us be clear about what it is not. Sawant's group, Socialist Alternative, is not in any way revolutionary or socialist. It is a typical social democratic tendency that covers itself with a thin 'leftist' Trotskyist veneer. They are hostile to Cuba, viciously anti-Korea, and play the game of plague on both your houses in regard to Syria, to give a few examples.

With that said, within the context of U.S. imperialist politics, the election of a woman of color, an immigrant, a self-described socialist, on a program of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, is of course wholly progressive.

What is important for revolutionaries to take away from this development? We can and must be bold about speaking in the name of socialism. There is more space open to for red forces to use the electoral campaign tool to spread an anti-capitalist message (while taking care not to spread electoral illusions among the masses or in our own ranks).

More significant and worthy of study is the election of Chokwe Lumumba as Mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, on a People's Assembly platform.

"She's not a tankie and she's a social democrat, but she's not white or male and pays proper left lip service, so go her!!1"

I hope that Condoleezza Rice becomes the Republican Presidential candidate in 2016 so WWP and other tankies will have someone to rally 'round.

DaringMehring

19th November 2013, 04:30

Some small business owners in Seattle endorsed her campaign.

The petit-bourgeoisie are not the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie are the automatic enemy of the proletarian. Their power needs to be broken and they need to be overthrown.

The petit-bourgeoisie are an intermediate layer who seeks class conciliation and are unable to fully grasp the implacable opposition and life and death struggle of bourgeoisie and proletarian. There is always variation based on individual consciousness, but as a group they get dragged behind whatever side seems the more powerful.

The fact that some petit-bourgeoisie sided with Sawant is a sign of the increasing power of the proletariat, and loss of credibility of the bourgeoisie. This is a change from the petit-bourgeoisie's recent almost-universal support of the capitalists.

It would be different if Sawant were pandering, ie, trying to represent a radical petit-bourgeois outlook. This usually consists of talking up the corruption of all the "big" entities -- corporations and unions both, as if they were some how equal things, and stressing the need for (fake capitalist) "rights" to be respected. Sawant clearly does not do this.

As long as the working class Party does not deviate from the perspective of its own class, it is a good sign if the petit-bourgeoisie supports it. Thus when one interviewer asked Sawant, "are you against private enterprise?" or something to that effect, she replied "we are against the billionaires" -- but she could have done one better because that doesn't answer the question fully. She could have said "we are against billionaires and for workers, if you are asking about small business owners, it is up to them to decide who they have more in common with."

Remus Bleys

19th November 2013, 05:19

The petit-bourgeoisie are not the bourgeoisie. No, they are a subset of the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie are the automatic enemy of the proletarian. Their power needs to be broken and they need to be overthrown.[/QUOTE] As is the haute-bourgesoisie.

The petit-bourgeoisie are an intermediate layer who seeks class conciliation and are unable to fully grasp the implacable opposition and life and death struggle of bourgeoisie and proletarian. There is always variation based on individual consciousness, but as a group they get dragged behind whatever side seems the more powerful.No. You really need to learn your history. Shit like fascism, that was them.

The fact that some petit-bourgeoisie sided with Sawant is a sign of the increasing power of the proletariat, and loss of credibility of the bourgeoisie. This is a change from the petit-bourgeoisie's recent almost-universal support of the capitalists.OR that Sawant's platform is that of a social democrats.

It would be different if Sawant were pandering, ie, trying to represent a radical petit-bourgeois outlook. This usually consists of talking up the corruption of all the "big" entities -- corporations and unions both, as if they were some how equal things, and stressing the need for (fake capitalist) "rights" to be respected. Sawant clearly does not do this.
How does she attack the small business owner the same as the big business owner?

As long as the working class Party does not deviate from the perspective of its own class, it is a good sign if the petit-bourgeoisie supports it.
I do not think you understand what a workers party is.

Thus when one interviewer asked Sawant, "are you against private enterprise?" or something to that effect, she replied "we are against the billionaires" -- but she could have done one better because that doesn't answer the question fully. She could have said "we are against billionaires and for workers, if you are asking about small business owners, it is up to them to decide who they have more in common with."So she is not against private enterprise, just billionaires?

Five Year Plan

19th November 2013, 06:27

I understand this. I will expand a bit upon my previous post:
I think that you should employ whatever strategy you feel is best to work towards a working-class revolution and the overthrow of the capitalist system. I think that if you feel as though elections are hogwash then that's totally fine and you should mobilize whatever working class folks you can on that platform. I will support your efforts 100%.
Likewise, I think that folks like the CWI should employ their strategies for working class mobilization and that may include elections. I will support them 100% so long as their political platform remains in the interest of the working class.

This is a strange position. You support contradictory approaches to revolution just because the people pursuing them believe them to be effective? I don't think the people in the CWI should replicate the Sawant campaign's approach because I don't think it is effective either at raising workers' revolutionary consciousness through struggle, and in fact goes some distance in the opposite direction. By presenting to broad swaths of the population vague populist formulations about fighting corporations, without any reference to the need for revolution, Sawant is almost certainly reinforcing widely held misconception that socialism is a variety of capitalism with a strong social safety-net, and can be achieved by voting for candidates like Sawant.

My point to you is that your position regarding the OP and the issue at hand is strategically inept. It may be morally and philosophically consistent depending upon your political philosophy (hell, I may even agree with the majority of it), but it is strategically unsound and therefore ought be discarded as an argument. No one is holding this election up as a "reinvention of the wheel" (your words). I understand your objections to this election but your view is too narrow and betrays an utter lack of vision and perspective. This election is simply another avenue of action and one which you don't find very prudent or productive. But that is your opinion, and one which I respect, but one among many.I would hope supporters of Sawant aren't "holding this election up as reinventing the wheel." Reinventing the wheel is an expression referring to investing time and resources into retreading old ideas that have already been tried and whose usefulness (or lack thereof) can already be seen.

Apart from that, I don't see any argument here about why my strategy is inept. You just say it's "too narrow," "lacks vision," and is "strategically unsound." But you never explain how. I don't really have much to say in response except that, while you are entitled to your opinion, you aren't likely to persuade fence-sitters of your position in the absence of persuasive argument.

There are two truths at play here:
1) Revolutionary leftism is largely marginalized and hence revolutionary leftists betray attitudes consistent with marginalized communities: self-destruction, self-division, bickering, etc... We turn against each other in order to feel powerful because we cannot complete our goal in a larger context.
2) Strategy trumps political moralizing/bickering: it is strategically valuable to the left to have this election end as it did. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the failure of the left that we cannot put strategy ahead of our egos and personal disagreements. Until we do, we will lose this war.What about self-division and bickering over strategy? I agree that strategy is valuable, valuable enough not to be shunted aside because some people think that division is inherently harmful or "self-destructive." The problem here is that nobody who are touting the importance of Sawant's election can point to a strategy. The most I have seen are people ebullient that people voted for somebody who called herself a socialist, like that's unprecedented. Apparently they've never heard of Bernie Sanders or social democracy.

I have explained what I think the correct strategy for her campaign would have been, and so far, the only response I have received is just you stating that I am wrong without explaining how. I guess you're afraid to "bicker." But it's interesting to note you aren't afraid to say you disagree with me. Doesn't this create needless division?

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2013, 11:12

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2013, 11:41

When workers fight for reforms that are meaningful to them and win, it increases their awareness of their own power and the power of organizing outside the system.

It is an awareness of their power to create reform. And nothing else. What a "meaningful win" becomes is an example of how the bourgeois state, given the right amount of pressure, will concede to demands.

And the state will concede to demands. As history has taught us, the state is incredibly adept at co-opting struggles and placating dissent. It is an effective tactic and one that serves their interests.

Sawant has said repeatedly that she can accomplish very little alone, and that any gains will come from workers mobilizing.

The capture of the means of production by the proletariat is the only thing that can affirm the process of communism. Without control over the means of production we cannot achieve anything.

It is therefore necessary to move towards that actuality. How then do we achieve that? Are you really arguing that we can move towards that by winning concessions from the state? When has it ever been the case that movements who win reforms turn into a counter-power?

A counter-power is political power capable of directly challenging and replacing existing institutions and structures. We can't create that counter-power by asking for reforms, we create it through developing and establishing institutions of proletarian hegemony.

Instead of using money, time and resources fighting for the state to provide solutions, militants should be attempting to insert ideas and tactics within those struggles and communities that seek to establish organs of self-management. These act to counter the power of the state and bring the class closer to conflict.

Our role is to build class solidarity/unity within structures of proletarian power that can escalate open conflict and to secure a base within communities from which further struggle can emerge. There is no role for electoralism within that.

KurtFF8

19th November 2013, 13:35

The capture of the means of production by the proletariat is the only thing that can affirm the process of communism. Without control over the means of production we cannot achieve anything.

You could apply these exact two sentences to literally any tactic or strategy that isn't immediately and actively seizing the means of production. For example it could be said in response to someone calling for a militant demonstration, or a strike in a particular industry, etc.

After a while that kind of talk just becomes redundant: "oh this particular thing isn't the same thing as a total revolution so it isn't good enough and doesn't deserve support!"

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2013, 14:17

You could apply these exact two sentences to literally any tactic or strategy that isn't immediately and actively seizing the means of production. For example it could be said in response to someone calling for a militant demonstration, or a strike in a particular industry, etc.

I am unclear why it is that I am not being understood. Perhaps I am not explaining myself clearly. The point I am making, if you follow the thread of my post, is that our activity has to be that which builds towards that actuality.

After a while that kind of talk just becomes redundant: "oh this particular thing isn't the same thing as a total revolution so it isn't good enough and doesn't deserve support!"

That is a reductive analysis of my argument. My argument is not that we should only do action that creates a "total revolution", whatever that is supposed to mean. I am making the argument that the activity we engage in should be about working towards seizing the means of production, that this requires a process of establishing institutions of proletarian hegemony and that electoralism has no place in that.

Catma

19th November 2013, 16:19

our activity has to be that which builds towards that actuality.What are some activities that build toward that actuality?

Further, what must be accomplished before we can act on seizing the means of production, in your eyes? I can appreciate that you don't think building a party is a necessary step (though SA does), but surely some sort of (organized) social transformation is important?

Creative Destruction

19th November 2013, 22:59

http://www.revleft.com/vb/kshama-sawant-has-t185010/index13.html

Now Boeing is threatening to take those jobs to other states. “That will be nothing short of economic terrorism because it's going to devastate the state's economy,” she said.

Sawant is calling for machinists to literally take-possession of the Everett airplane-building factory, if Boeing moves out. She calls that "democratic ownership."

“The only response we can have if Boeing executives do not agree to keep the plant here is for the machinists to say the machines are here, the workers are here, we will do the job, we don't need the executives. The executives don’t do the work, the machinists do,” she said.

These are things a left-wing Democrat would say, surely.

KurtFF8

19th November 2013, 23:51

I am unclear why it is that I am not being understood. Perhaps I am not explaining myself clearly. The point I am making, if you follow the thread of my post, is that our activity has to be that which builds towards that actuality.

Where did I indicate that I was confused by your post?

As I said in my post, there are multiple roads for "building towards that actuality" and the tools involved include general strikes, workplace occupations, electoral victories, militant protest, etc.

None of these alone will do the job.

That is a reductive analysis of my argument. My argument is not that we should only do action that creates a "total revolution", whatever that is supposed to mean. I am making the argument that the activity we engage in should be about working towards seizing the means of production, that this requires a process of establishing institutions of proletarian hegemony and that electoralism has no place in that.

Ugh it's annoying to have to defend the SA so much here but you're again just basing all of this on a straw man argument about their strategy. Marxist organizations (even in the most Eurocommunist moments in that period for Western European Communist organizations) did not merely focus on the idea that elections will directly lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat (although it could be argued that some would act as if that were the only way forward) but rather that elections were one amongst many tactics of building working class consciousness and working class power.

Why simply engaging in electoral politics automatically disqualifies an organization from building towards establishing working class power is what remains unclear to me. You and other seems to just keep repeating "well elections themselves won't lead to working class ownership over the means of production" to which it seems everyone you're trying to discuss this with is respond "okay? who said that?" Repeat this multiple times and we have this thread.

Decolonize The Left

20th November 2013, 00:49

This is a strange position. You support contradictory approaches to revolution just because the people pursuing them believe them to be effective? I don't think the people in the CWI should replicate the Sawant campaign's approach because I don't think it is effective either at raising workers' revolutionary consciousness through struggle, and in fact goes some distance in the opposite direction. By presenting to broad swaths of the population vague populist formulations about fighting corporations, without any reference to the need for revolution, Sawant is almost certainly reinforcing widely held misconception that socialism is a variety of capitalism with a strong social safety-net, and can be achieved by voting for candidates like Sawant.

Your analysis is your own; that much you accept. You also accept that what you have stated here is your opinion on fellow leftists. My point is that what matters is the fellow leftists, not your positive/negative opinion of them. Just like you may have a negative opinion, others have a positive opinion, others neutral. Our opinions of each other's politics can be productive when they are delivered in a constructive manner. It does not take but a cursory glance of this thread and the one preceding it to notice that, at least on this forum, few opinions are constructive and most are derisive and counter-productive.

Apart from that, I don't see any argument here about why my strategy is inept. You just say it's "too narrow," "lacks vision," and is "strategically unsound." But you never explain how. I don't really have much to say in response except that, while you are entitled to your opinion, you aren't likely to persuade fence-sitters of your position in the absence of persuasive argument.

That is a fair point. My argument against the lambasting and derision of Sawant and her campaign is simple:
Does her election benefit the working class or not? Is her platform in the interest of the working class? I don't care about how "revolutionary" or "revisionist" one person wants to portray her platform; what I care about is my class.
If her platform does indeed benefit the working class by raising the minimum wage, etc... then it is a progressive step and one which stands in the interests of our class. We do not need to tout is as anything more than it is, and I welcome your level-headed criticism of her campaign (and agree with much of it). But my opinions of it in regards to theory and philosophy are secondary to the reality in play, and that reality is a progressive one - no matter how slight.

What about self-division and bickering over strategy? I agree that strategy is valuable, valuable enough not to be shunted aside because some people think that division is inherently harmful or "self-destructive." The problem here is that nobody who are touting the importance of Sawant's election can point to a strategy. The most I have seen are people ebullient that people voted for somebody who called herself a socialist, like that's unprecedented. Apparently they've never heard of Bernie Sanders or social democracy.

Self-division and bickering are never strategically beneficial in a war. They weaken forces, destroy morale, and cripple the force's ability to mobilize and execute.

I have explained what I think the correct strategy for her campaign would have been, and so far, the only response I have received is just you stating that I am wrong without explaining how. I guess you're afraid to "bicker." But it's interesting to note you aren't afraid to say you disagree with me. Doesn't this create needless division?

I cannot find where you offered "the correct strategy for her campaign" in response to my post unless you are referring to this:

Some of us want to advance a revolutionary socialist movement, which requires we talk about inconvenient topics like revolution, who will make that revolution (the working class against capitalism), and how it will happen (not through bourgeois elections).
If this is the case, then you surely must acknowledge that no one is stopping you from advancing such a campaign. In fact, I encourage you to advance that campaign; that was my original point.

There are many roads to Dublin, so to speak. I see no reason why roads ought be closed because certain individuals don't find them theoretically "correct," especially not when the context of the situation dictates that an open-ended and wide diversity of tactics are necessary to advance our interests as a class.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

20th November 2013, 00:55

That liberal is telling Seattle Boeing workers to take over the factory. Look at how happy it made all those liberals in the comment section. :P

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/seattle-city-councilmember-elect-shares-radical-id/nbxbC/

SEATTLE —
Seattle City Councilmember-elect Kshama Sawant told Boeing machinists her idea of a radical option, should their jobs be moved out of state
“The workers should take over the factories, and shut down Boeing’s profit-making machine,” Sawant announced to a cheering crowd of union supporters in Seattle’s Westlake Park Monday night.
This week, Sawant became Seattle’s first elected Socialist council member. She ran on a platform of anti-capitalism, workers’ rights, and a $15 per-hour minimum wage for Seattle workers.
On Monday night, she spoke to supporters of Boeing Machinists, six days after they rejected a contract guaranteeing jobs in Everett building the new 777X airliner for eight years, in exchange for new workers giving up their guaranteed company pensions.
Now Boeing is threatening to take those jobs to other states. “That will be nothing short of economic terrorism because it's going to devastate the state's economy,” she said.
Sawant is calling for machinists to literally take-possession of the Everett airplane-building factory, if Boeing moves out. She calls that "democratic ownership."
“The only response we can have if Boeing executives do not agree to keep the plant here is for the machinists to say the machines are here, the workers are here, we will do the job, we don't need the executives. The executives don’t do the work, the machinists do,” she said.
Sawant says after workers “take-over” the Everett Boeing plant; they could build things everyone can use.
“We can re-tool the machines to produce mass transit like buses, instead of destructive, you know, war machines,” she told KIRO 7.
Sawant says she was referring to “drones” when speaking of war machines. Still, she says even as they work on the lines, building airplanes daily, she believes Boeing workers are under siege.
“Workers have to realize, they have more power than they think,” she said.

Decolonize The Left

20th November 2013, 00:56

So you think all strategies work?

I think that any and all political platforms which advance the interests of the working class ought to remain on the table until the context of the situation dictates otherwise.

I further think that self-divisive and reactionary attitudes, such as those which claim that one of the working class political platforms is "incorrect" or "wrong," are counter-productive, self-destructive, and strategically unsound.

And finally, I think we are in this situation because of the poor state of leftism and the only way out is to broaden our scope of vision and acknowledge that this is a war which needs to be viewed and treated strategically and there is no room for infighting in war.

Five Year Plan

20th November 2013, 01:01

Your analysis is your own; that much you accept. You also accept that what you have stated here is your opinion on fellow leftists. My point is that what matters is the fellow leftists, not your positive/negative opinion of them. Just like you may have a negative opinion, others have a positive opinion, others neutral. Our opinions of each other's politics can be productive when they are delivered in a constructive manner. It does not take but a cursory glance of this thread and the one preceding it to notice that, at least on this forum, few opinions are constructive and most are derisive and counter-productive.

You basically are taking an entire paragraph to tell me that the opinions of fellow leftists matter. If I didn't think they mattered, I wouldn't be posting arguments to persuade them, would I? As for civility, we are on the same page.

That is a fair point. My argument against the lambasting and derision of Sawant and her campaign is simple:
Does her election benefit the working class or not? Is her platform in the interest of the working class? I don't care about how "revolutionary" or "revisionist" one person wants to portray her platform; what I care about is my class.
If her platform does indeed benefit the working class by raising the minimum wage, etc... then it is a progressive step and one which stands in the interests of our class. We do not need to tout is as anything more than it is, and I welcome your level-headed criticism of her campaign (and agree with much of it). But my opinions of it in regards to theory and philosophy are secondary to the reality in play, and that reality is a progressive one - no matter how slight.By your metric of judging whether a platform is good for the working class by asking whether it advocates reforms that improves workers' standard of living, you are extracting the struggle for reforms out of the process of revolutionary struggle in a way that allows you to cheerlead for reformism. Reforms fought for and won on such a basis are great for repairing and managing the crises of capitalism. They harm the struggle for revolution, however, because the reforms are not being sought or understood on a revolutionary basis, and therefore serve to shore up workers' illusions in the inherent sustainability of capitalism. The struggle for revolution at this stage of the game consists of struggling for how to understand and fight for reforms. You want to cede this battle to reformist approaches, presumably for the sake of "unity." This is where I think that unity for the sake of unity is actually more harmful than division, because your unity is being won at the cost of catering to the lowest common denominator. Revolutionaries call this tailing.

As I have noted to other users, if leftists viewed all reforms as as progress toward revolution, regardless of workers' understanding of the link between those reforms and the ultimate source of grievances requiring reforms (capitalism), there is literally no reason not to throw your support behind bourgeois politicians who favor reforms. Why don't we? I thought it was because revolutionaries situated the struggle for reforms, evaluated them, by measuring the extent to which they advance the struggle for revolution. Maybe you have different ideas?

Self-division and bickering are never strategically beneficial in a war. They weaken forces, destroy morale, and cripple the force's ability to mobilize and execute.Then why do you create division by disagreeing with me? Might it be because you find bad strategy worse than disagreement? Well, the feeling is mutual.

I cannot find where you offered "the correct strategy for her campaign" in response to my post unless you are referring to this:

If this is the case, then you surely must acknowledge that no one is stopping you from advancing such a campaign. In fact, I encourage you to advance that campaign; that was my original point. I have made my criticisms of Sawant's campaign clear throughout this thread, particularly in posts that were not directly a response to you. I appreciate your approval that I can share my views, but I am not really seeking your permission slip.