Jess Spear (CWI) running for Washington House of Representatives

[RedWorker]

Jess Spear (Socialist Alternative, Committee for a Workers' International) is running for the Washington State House of Representatives, 43rd district, Position 2. Apparently she has a chance to achieve at least a considerable result; she got 20% of the vote in primary elections. She participated in a TV face-to-face debate (http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=3061434) against Democrat incumbent Frank Chopp.

[Creative Destruction]

I've become a lot less enthused about the SA in the last year.

[RedWorker]

Why?

[BIXX]

Why?
Are you serious? I mean I was never into it but I can't believe that anyone would actually wonder why people are losing the interest they had in it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Whatever happened to Sawant?

[RedWorker]

Are you serious? I mean I was never into it but I can't believe that anyone would actually wonder why people are losing the interest they had in it.

Yes, I'm serious. I'm not from the U.S. and my knowledge about Socialist Alternative amounts to little more than they got Kshama Sawant elected and achieved a $15 minimum wage in Seattle. In the future, please avoid writing useless posts.


Whatever happened to Sawant?

Sawant ran in this same race and lost by a margin of 70%-30% to Democratic incumbent Chopp. She is currently in her position in the Seattle City Council.

[The Feral Underclass]

Has she done anything?

[Creative Destruction]

Why?

I met with a couple of organizers from Seattle and they weren't very inspiring. I get fighting for reforms right now, but I got the feeling that a lot of it was about just that. There was very little focus on getting a socialist program out there, and there was more focus on organizing around reforms. Which is ass-backwards to me. IOW, they're running the danger of just becoming a social-democratic party because of how they're running their campaigns. Like, the face-to-face debate with Spear and Chopp, the moderator asked her a question "Would Republicans and Democrats come together to work with you and your argenda?" or something to that effect. She gave an extremely tepid, Green Party-ish answer, instead of just shutting it down and making her party distinguished from the bourgeois parties. Why the fuck would we want the Democrats and Republicans help us on our agenda, unless they took an about face against capitalism? They're really trying to get elected. They're not trying to promote themselves as an actual socialist alternative.

[Chomskyan]

The US political system just is hopeless.

SA isn't bad, it just will likely have a small short term impact and then fizzle out. That's how US politics works.


I met with a couple of organizers from Seattle and they weren't very inspiring. I get fighting for reforms right now, but I got the feeling that a lot of it was about just that. There was very little focus on getting a socialist program out there, and there was more focus on organizing around reforms. Which is ass-backwards to me. IOW, they're running the danger of just becoming a social-democratic party because of how they're running their campaigns. Like, the face-to-face debate with Spear and Chopp, the moderator asked her a question "Would Republicans and Democrats come together to work with you and your argenda?" or something to that effect. She gave an extremely tepid, Green Party-ish answer, instead of just shutting it down and making her party distinguished from the bourgeois parties. Why the fuck would we want the Democrats and Republicans help us on our agenda, unless they took an about face against capitalism? They're really trying to get elected. They're not trying to promote themselves as an actual socialist alternative. That has not been my impression at all. Sawant bashed capitalism every chance she got. It's true that they're focusing on single-issue reforms to get elected but that's how populism works. Spear just seems like a bad spokesman.

[Creative Destruction]

The US political system just is hopeless.

SA isn't bad, it just will likely have a small short term impact and then fizzle out. That's how US politics works.

That has not been my impression at all. Sawant bashed capitalism every chance she got. It's true that they're focusing on single-issue reforms to get elected but that's how populism works. Spear just seems like a bad spokesman.

Yeah, Sawant did. Which is why I became extremely interested in their work when she was campaigning and was thinking about joining the SA, despite not being a Trot. After she got her council seat, they sent out organizers to different places to meet with people and when I met with them, my impression changed fairly quickly. Seeing Jess Spear's campaign and her rhetoric is just confirming it, disappointingly. A "socialist alternative" is not a "populist alternative." Hence, "I've become a lot less enthused about the SA in the last year."

[Per Levy]

Yes, I'm serious. I'm not from the U.S. and my knowledge about Socialist Alternative amounts to little more than they got Kshama Sawant elected and achieved a $15 minimum wage in Seattle.

"Businesses employing more than 500 workers would be required to pay $15 an hour by 2017, or 2018 if health care is offered. Smaller businesses would have five to seven years to phase in the increase. Part of employees' tips and benefits could be applied toward the higher minimum for as long as 11 years."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/02/seattle-minimum-wage-vote/9863061/

good for the workers who have to wait for 11 years for the 15$/h, they have something to look forward to. that is if the minimum wage isnt changed/lowerd by a new council in 5 years or so. also good to see that the small capitalists wernt forgotton and they get several years before they have to pay the 15$. so campainging for sawant wasnt all that fruitless for them afterall.

[BIXX]

In the future, please avoid writing useless posts.

Fuck your shit man.

If you had done your fucking research maybe my post questioning interest in the SA wouldn't be required. You only have yourself to blame for the "useless post".

[RedWorker]

Jess Spear 16.54%
Frank Chopp 83.46%

Worse than the previous result obtained in the same race by Kshama Sawant...


If you had done your fucking research maybe my post questioning interest in the SA wouldn't be required. You only have yourself to blame for the "useless post".

This is applicable to every single question ever. Everyone could have "done his research" instead of asking a question. And maybe if you hadn't made your useless post, then my post telling you to stop making useless posts wouldn't have been made. Please stop making useless posts.

[mousEtopher]

Jess Spear 16.54%
Frank Chopp 83.46%

Worse than the previous result obtained in the same race by Kshama Sawant...



This is applicable to every single question ever. Everyone could have "done his research" instead of asking a question. And maybe if you hadn't made your useless post, then my post telling you to stop making useless posts wouldn't have been made. Please stop making useless posts.
Agreed. Saying "Do your research" is not justification for writing pointless, condescending non-answers.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I keep seeing that Sawants election is gonna lead to a higher profile for leftist politics, but i seriously have not heard a single person even acknowledge that it happened in the first place. Maybe it was a big deal for Seattle, i don't know but unfortunately no one else gives a shit. I mean its the city council, 90% of people don't know shit about their own council, let alone one in some other city.

[Lily Briscoe]

Maybe it was a big deal for Seattle...
It wasn't, at all.

[Chomskyan]

I hope for SA's successes in the future. Maybe, in five years or so, I can organize for SA in Minnesota for elections. But the bourgeois ballot access rules are a kick in the ass.

Since the 1940s the Bourgeois parties have made it impossible for grassroots parties to challenge their rule.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I hope for SA's successes in the future. Maybe, in five years or so, I can organize for SA in Minnesota for elections. But the bourgeois ballot access rules are a kick in the ass.
Before organising for ballot action, consider why you'd want to have someone elected in Minnesota. The reason Sawant had enough of an impact in Seattle was because the election campaigns were a supplement to the fight for a $15/hr wage and as part of a wider struggle against foreclosure of homes etc. So if you organise for a higher minimum wage, unionised workplaces, against student debts, social housing etc. first then you'd maybe see enough momentum to get someone elected in order to maintain and support any gains you make in other arenas. The point isn't to get elected but to use the bourgeois system to defend the organising outside the bourgeois parliament and disrupt the efforts of the capitalist parties because socialism won't come through the ballot box.

[Chomskyan]

Before organising for ballot action, consider why you'd want to have someone elected in Minnesota. The reason Sawant had enough of an impact in Seattle was because the election campaigns were a supplement to the fight for a $15/hr wage and as part of a wider struggle against foreclosure of homes etc. So if you organise for a higher minimum wage, unionised workplaces, against student debts, social housing etc. first then you'd maybe see enough momentum to get someone elected in order to maintain and support any gains you make in other arenas. The point isn't to get elected but to use the bourgeois system to defend the organising outside the bourgeois parliament and disrupt the efforts of the capitalist parties because socialism won't come through the ballot box.

Another SA representative was on the ballot (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/12/city-council-socialism/) in Minneapolis Ty Moore, around the same time as Kshama Sawant was. He didn't get any media coverage because he lost, but the margin of victory was quite small (http://vote.minneapolismn.gov/results/2013/2013-ward-09-tabulation).

The reason he didn't get elected was because he was campaigning on anti-racism and better working and housing conditions... and he was running against a Latina woman who was essentially running on the same platform.

So, if in the future Democrats don't deliver on their promises, as they do, and the upsurge of support is there, I don't think SA would have a hard time.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Another SA representative was on the ballot in Minneapolis Ty Moore, around the same time as Kshama Sawant was. He didn't get any media coverage because he lost, but the margin of victory was quite small (http://vote.minneapolismn.gov/results/2013/2013-ward-09-tabulation).

The reason he didn't get elected was because he was campaigning on anti-racism and better working and housing conditions... and he was running against a Latina woman who was essentially running on the same platform.

So, if in the future Democrats don't deliver on their promises, as they do, and the upsurge of support is there, I don't think SA would have a hard time.
I've met Ty at the CWI summer school in Belgium, he seems like a cool guy. But I do think it's a bit premature to suggest that if the democrats renege on their promises it would simply lead to SA coming in and filling the gap. Too many people simply vote for the Democrats due to wanting to keep the Republicans out. And I wouldn't want people to simply 'vote' for the SA as some sort of 'protest vote'. Better to have ten genuine socialists fighting for better working conditions than a thousand protest votes from reformists.

[Chomskyan]

I've met Ty at the CWI summer school in Belgium, he seems like a cool guy. But I do think it's a bit premature to suggest that if the democrats renege on their promises it would simply lead to SA coming in and filling the gap. Too many people simply vote for the Democrats due to wanting to keep the Republicans out. And I wouldn't want people to simply 'vote' for the SA as some sort of 'protest vote'. Better to have ten genuine socialists fighting for better working conditions than a thousand protest votes from reformists.

lol Minnesota is a blue state as blue as blue can be.

Although, I will not deny that it is naive to believe it's that simple. But, I do believe the possibility exists, and that's better than nothing.

[BIXX]

This is applicable to every single question ever. Everyone could have "done his research" instead of asking a question.
That's a stupid, and incorrect statement. Especially with a topic that is so easily researched as SAlt.


And maybe if you hadn't made your useless post, then my post telling you to stop making useless posts wouldn't have been made. Please stop making useless posts.

Stop asking stupid questions maybe?

To the point of the thread: I think its funny that anyone cares about bourgeois electoral politics. Reform over revolution, I guess?

[Lily Briscoe]

Er, what's the problem with discussing it? Most people in this thread are critical of the campaign

[Thirsty Crow]

Jess Spear (Socialist Alternative, Committee for a Workers' International) is running for the Washington State House of Representatives, 43rd district, Position 2. Apparently she has a chance to achieve at least a considerable result; she got 20% of the vote in primary elections. She participated in a TV face-to-face debate (http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=3061434) against Democrat incumbent Frank Chopp.
I tell you what, explain the gains for the class in the federal state of Washington in general, and in Seattle in particular made by the election of Kshama Sawant, along with a reasonable explanation of the political practice of the councillor and the pary, and the prospects behind it, and then we can talk.

[RedWorker]

I tell you what, explain the gains for the class in the federal state of Washington in general, and in Seattle in particular made by the election of Kshama Sawant, along with a reasonable explanation of the political practice of the councillor and the pary, and the prospects behind it, and then we can talk.

What? Did I say this party or politician is good at all? I was simply posting an information, an interesting news item. Goddamn, RevLeft people are boring with their arbitrary and boring accusations when an opinion is not even said, I wonder what would happen if I actually said one...

[Crabbensmasher]

This is like when people criticize boycotting a product because it doesn't change anything. "Even if you and your supporters stop buying product X, millions of others will! You will hardly make a fraction of a dent in the company's sales! It won't change a thing.".
And they're entirely right - it won't effect the companies sales at all. The purpose is propaganda. It's the buzz that's generated by a group of people taking action.

SA is the same deal. Let's talk about Kshama for a minute. We all know a city councillor in Seattle isn't going to start a fucking revolution.

Here's what I see: I see a lot of media attention right now. Think about it this way. How often does the election of a fucking city councillor ever cause this much talk and controversy? No, she wasn't running for house, not even mayor - she was running for a city council seat. The amount of media coverage (through indie media as well as mainstream media) may not have been groundbreaking, but it was completely disproportionate to the actual importance of that seat. AND THATS THE POINT. It's all about the hype

And here's the point with Jess Spears. She might be a social democrat, she might be a cop out, but she's running openly as a socialist. She's bringing the word back into the mainstream. Issues like workers rights, class, labour organizing are coming back into the vocabulary. And her opponent, Chopp, actually seems scared by her. The democrats are putting all they've got into that campaign. At the same time too, he's starting to try and win back Spears' voters. (SURPRISE: HE RECENTLY ENDORSED RENT CONTROL AS WELL). I think its pretty obviously, public opinion in slowly changing because of this. People are asking 'Why are politicians favouring corporate welfare over social welfare'. Say what you will, but maybe that's the beginning of a trend?

Of course none of this means anything on the ground. It's all propaganda, its all marketing. It's changing public opinion.

I'm a bit sick of this defeatist attitude we all have. We all think we're too high and mighty to pay any attention to this. No, it's not pretty. It's not fucking pretty at all. Calling Jess Spears a true socialist would make me gag.

But you know what? I don't think we can afford to play the high and mighty game. If you want to build Marxism, you have to start from the ground. You have to build the foundations, and that's public opinion. We have the legacy of fucking decades of McCarthyism and Reaganism to smash, and these folks are actually making a pretty good dent in it. Nobody said building socialism would be easy. It's a pool of shit, so pull up your sleeves and prepare to get dirty.

[The Feral Underclass]

The purpose is propaganda. It's the buzz that's generated by a group of people taking action.

Why is the purpose propaganda? What do you think is going to be different this time? Getting people elected into bourgeois office does nothing except identify the limitations of the bourgeois political system and entrench people into a process they can't influence.

Far from being some kind of inspiring propaganda coup, what invariably happens is that people just become disillusioned all over again when they realise all their effort and time spent getting someone elected meant nothing, since the candidate can't actually do anything.

You people need to stop flogging this dead horse.


I'm a bit sick of this defeatist attitude we all have

It's not defeatist to recognise that as a strategy, getting people elected into office is absolutely fucking pointless. It's not defeatist to want to have a strategy that might achieve something useful. Frankly, I'm sick of champions of bourgeois parliamentary politics claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with them is somehow abandoning the class struggle...Your strategy doesn't work. That view isn't defeatism, it's just reality.


But you know what? I don't think we can afford to play the high and mighty game. If you want to build Marxism, you have to start from the ground. You have to build the foundations, and that's public opinion. We have the legacy of fucking decades of McCarthyism and Reaganism to smash, and these folks are actually making a pretty good dent in it. Nobody said building socialism would be easy. It's a pool of shit, so pull up your sleeves and prepare to get dirty.

Lol. Building public opinion in what? That a socialist can get elected into a bourgeois political system? What opinion is it you're trying to cultivate?

And actually I think we can afford to play the high and mighty game. Doing that might create a sensible strategy, rather than wasting time and resources getting people elected into bourgeois office, that in the long term does absolutely nothing of any value.

[Per Levy]

This is like when people criticize boycotting a product because it doesn't change anything. "Even if you and your supporters stop buying product X, millions of others will! You will hardly make a fraction of a dent in the company's sales! It won't change a thing.".
And they're entirely right - it won't effect the companies sales at all. The purpose is propaganda. It's the buzz that's generated by a group of people taking action.

SA is the same deal. Let's talk about Kshama for a minute. We all know a city councillor in Seattle isn't going to start a fucking revolution.

Here's what I see: I see a lot of media attention right now. Think about it this way. How often does the election of a fucking city councillor ever cause this much talk and controversy? No, she wasn't running for house, not even mayor - she was running for a city council seat. The amount of media coverage (through indie media as well as mainstream media) may not have been groundbreaking, but it was completely disproportionate to the actual importance of that seat. AND THATS THE POINT. It's all about the hype

And here's the point with Jess Spears. She might be a social democrat, she might be a cop out, but she's running openly as a socialist. She's bringing the word back into the mainstream. Issues like workers rights, class, labour organizing are coming back into the vocabulary. And her opponent, Chopp, actually seems scared by her. The democrats are putting all they've got into that campaign. At the same time too, he's starting to try and win back Spears' voters. (SURPRISE: HE RECENTLY ENDORSED RENT CONTROL AS WELL). I think its pretty obviously, public opinion in slowly changing because of this. People are asking 'Why are politicians favouring corporate welfare over social welfare'. Say what you will, but maybe that's the beginning of a trend?

Of course none of this means anything on the ground. It's all propaganda, its all marketing. It's changing public opinion.

I'm a bit sick of this defeatist attitude we all have. We all think we're too high and mighty to pay any attention to this. No, it's not pretty. It's not fucking pretty at all. Calling Jess Spears a true socialist would make me gag.

But you know what? I don't think we can afford to play the high and mighty game. If you want to build Marxism, you have to start from the ground. You have to build the foundations, and that's public opinion. We have the legacy of fucking decades of McCarthyism and Reaganism to smash, and these folks are actually making a pretty good dent in it. Nobody said building socialism would be easy. It's a pool of shit, so pull up your sleeves and prepare to get dirty.

you can count always on leftists to try to save bourgeois institutions that most workers either have no faith at all in or have more than a healthy distrust of. and why is that? because of propaganda? what propaganda do you want to bring into the playfield of the bourgeoisie? the playfield that most workers dont give a shit about anyway and dont watch the "debates" that happen in parliament.

and please dont come up with a dead russian or some outdated marx/engels quote on this.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

you can count always on leftists to try to save bourgeois institutions that most workers either have no faith at all in or have more than a healthy distrust of. and why is that? because of propaganda? what propaganda do you want to bring into the playfield of the bourgeoisie? the playfield that most workers dont give a shit about anyway and dont watch the "debates" that happen in parliament.

and please dont come up with a dead russian or some outdated marx/engels quote on this.

Oh. Um... so. Where should I put this corpse of Lozovsky then?

Anyway, the chief problem is that people conflate propaganda with "media buzz" (ugh). Propaganda isn't "hey, check out this cool new thing". Propaganda presents a clear political line. Buzz is deliberately vague, because if all those nice petit-bourgeois people who support Sawant heard the phrase "expropriation" they'd shit their pants. (Well, they would if the communist movement was an actual threat at this point.) Is that how communists operate, by concealing what they stand for and hoping they'll get "popular"? It's ridiculous.

I suspect that, if capitalism finds the strength to continue for another few decades, years after the last proletarian has cast their vote the left will still bug people to vote Labour/Democrat "without illusions".

[Crabbensmasher]

It's not defeatist to recognise that as a strategy, getting people elected into office is absolutely fucking pointless. It's not defeatist to want to have a strategy that might achieve something useful. Frankly, I'm sick of champions of bourgeois parliamentary politics claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with them is somehow abandoning the class struggle...Your strategy doesn't work. That view isn't defeatism, it's just reality.

Sure, I'll concede that. It's a strategy like any other strategy. I think it can be useful, you don't, so what? The problem I see is that when I so much as hint that bourgeoisie politics can be used as a tool, I'm almost branded a heretic.

No, I'm not championing bourgeoisie politics. I'm proposing that it can in some cases be used as a tool.

And sure, you can totally argue, that by saying this, I am affirming these institutions - I'm 'legitimizing bourgeoise politics'. And yeah, that accusation has some strength behind it.

And you know what? Abstaining/boycotting bourgeoise institutions is a tactic as well! In certain places, and in certain points in history, yes, that was a valid strategy that I would get behind, but I don't think its being advocated for in any meaningful way here. If it were, and I believed it had some potency, I would get behind it.






And actually I think we can afford to play the high and mighty game. Doing that might create a sensible strategy, rather than wasting time and resources getting people elected into bourgeois office, that in the long term does absolutely nothing of any value.

Wasting time and resources? Like I said, unless we're organizing around a different strategy, those time/resources aren't going anywhere. Like I've been getting at, we're still so much still in the building stage. Mobilizing time and resources is doing good because at the end of the day, we're building support networks. People are connecting (in some cases, from all across the country) to work on a common goal. It builds solidarity, doesn't it?

And yeah, I know when I say it builds solidarity, I'm just giving a vague generality, but I know organizations in Vancouver that doubled their membership base because people heard about Kshama's election, got intrigued by socialism, and now their reading Marx. It's a start.

If they went in espousing the expropriation of private property and quoting Engels, I think they would get shut down. Conservatives would yell commie and they'd be done with before you could snap a finger. While none of us like to hear it, of course they were sneaking around what socialism really is. They're called sewer socialists for a reason, I'm not disagreeing with that.

But I think for every few people who vote for them not knowing what socialism is, I think at least one will be intrigued and look further into socialism. This is how you start dispelling what decades of American conservatism has misconstrued.

You can call SA social democrats all you want, and I agree, a good chunk of them probably are. But the end results are positive:

Some people (definitely not all) are going to learn about socialism without the misinformation that American politicians want to push.

[Thirsty Crow]

What? Did I say this party or politician is good at all? I was simply posting an information, an interesting news item. Goddamn, RevLeft people are boring with their arbitrary and boring accusations when an opinion is not even said, I wonder what would happen if I actually said one...

No, but then I didn't say you were claiming the politician is "good". If anything, the total lack of any meaningful attitude towards this on your behalf is what ticked me off to write what I did.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sure, I'll concede that. It's a strategy like any other strategy. I think it can be useful, you don't, so what? The problem I see is that when I so much as hint that bourgeoisie politics can be used as a tool, I'm almost branded a heretic.

So let me get this straight in my head: you accept that the strategy doesn't work, but you also simultaneously think the strategy -- that doesn't work -- can be useful; that bourgeois politics can be used as a "tool". And despite the fact you don't think the strategy can work, you think it's a problem when people point that out...

...Right. Well. I'm not really sure what I can say to that.


No, I'm not championing bourgeoisie politics. I'm proposing that it can in some cases be used as a tool.

A tool for what though? You say it can be used as a "tool" and that this is a reason to participate in it, but you never actually articulate what it can be used as a tool for.


And sure, you can totally argue, that by saying this, I am affirming these institutions - I'm 'legitimizing bourgeoise politics'. And yeah, that accusation has some strength behind it.

Yeah...Because it's true.


And you know what? Abstaining/boycotting bourgeoise institutions is a tactic as well! In certain places, and in certain points in history, yes, that was a valid strategy that I would get behind, but I don't think its being advocated for in any meaningful way here. If it were, and I believed it had some potency, I would get behind it.

The only reason it is being advocated for is because participating in bourgeois politics doesn't work -- if by "work" you mean build communist resistance to capitalism.

And it's not a tactic to "abstain from" or "boycott" bourgeois institutions, it's simply a recognition that participation in them doesn't actually achieve anything and in most cases actually has a detrimental affect on building a legitimate counter-power.


Wasting time and resources? Like I said, unless we're organizing around a different strategy, those time/resources aren't going anywhere. Like I've been getting at, we're still so much still in the building stage. Mobilizing time and resources is doing good because at the end of the day, we're building support networks. People are connecting (in some cases, from all across the country) to work on a common goal. It builds solidarity, doesn't it?

Building support networks and connecting people is a good thing, but it is absolutely pointless if those networks are being built and people are connecting within a strategy that ultimately isn't going to achieve anything of any lasting significance to abolishing capitalism.

If you're going to be build support networks and connect people then you do that in the effort to build institutions of proletarian power, not to get someone elected into a position of bourgeois political authority -- that actually doesn't have that much authority anyway.

The only way that the necessary conditions for abolishing capitalism can be created is if people are taking action to build up institutions that can directly challenge and replace the institutions of capital and the state through escalatable conflict. You cannot build for communism through the ballot box.


And yeah, I know when I say it builds solidarity, I'm just giving a vague generality, but I know organizations in Vancouver that doubled their membership base because people heard about Kshama's election, got intrigued by socialism, and now their reading Marx. It's a start.

Why is membership of a political organisation the measure of success? Genuine question.


If they went in espousing the expropriation of private property and quoting Engels, I think they would get shut down. Conservatives would yell commie and they'd be done with before you could snap a finger. While none of us like to hear it, of course they were sneaking around what socialism really is. They're called sewer socialists for a reason, I'm not disagreeing with that.

Yes, people should be espousing the expropriation of private property, since that's what we believe! It is only possible to be shut down if you consent to being shut down. Let conservatives yell commie, let them bray all they want -- the point is to resist and fight!


But I think for every few people who vote for them not knowing what socialism is, I think at least one will be intrigued and look further into socialism. This is how you start dispelling what decades of American conservatism has misconstrued.

The limitations of what you imagine class struggle to be is the fundamental problem here. For you, success is a few more members and one more person "looking further into socialism". That's pathetic! If you set yourself such mundane objectives how do you imagine you will ever achieve anything of any meaning?


Some people (definitely not all) are going to learn about socialism without the misinformation that American politicians want to push.

Yeah? And then what?

[Crabbensmasher]

The limitations of what you imagine class struggle to be is the fundamental problem here. For you, success is a few more members and one more person "looking further into socialism". That's pathetic! If you set yourself such mundane objectives how do you imagine you will ever achieve anything of any meaning?



I think this is what the whole argument comes down to: We have radically different perceptions of where the left is in America.

Like I said before, I think we've got to start from the very bottom. Lower than the bottom. We are dirt, we have to work in shit.

And to be honest, I don't really know when we will 'ever achieve anything of any meaning'. I just figure you have to keep chipping away at it. What else can you do? I mean I'm young, this is what I see. I never saw the movement as anything more than marginal.

But listen, if you would like to show me things from your perspective, I would be more than open to it. Send me a PM if you have any ideas on how to do this.