The ISO and the Kshama Sawant Campaign.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

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

[Crux]

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

And I think that comparison, which the ISO sometimes go to, is wildly off, for several reasons. First, the SEP was running a presidential campaign and if I know them right not interested in reaching out to other orgs in the slightest.
Meanwhile Kshama Sawant, Soc. Alt. member, was running for the Washington State House of representatives against the Democratic speaker of house in a two-way race and in a left-leaning district (and with the endorsement of the Freedom Socialist Party, The Stranger and CWA Local 37083). I assume you see how that is fundamentally different from a presidential campaign of our own, let alone the SEP's presidential campaign.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lucretia]

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

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

Meanwhile Kshama Sawant, Soc. Alt. member, was running for the Washington State House of representatives against the Democratic speaker of house in a two-way race and in a left-leaning district (and with the endorsement of the Freedom Socialist Party, The Stranger and CWA Local 37083). I assume you see how that is fundamentally different from a presidential campaign of our own, let alone the SEP's presidential campaign.

Different in what respect? That she was running for a lower-level political office in a district where one of the two main political parties was so dominant that the other main political party didn't bother to run a candidate? So the pay-off is what? A third-party candidacy would likely receive 15 or 20% of the vote rather than 2%, and mostly from voters who simply wanted to oppose the Democrat rather than out of any convictions for the platform of the third-party candidate.

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

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

Oddly enough, they and fellow-travelers in their tendency are the only ones I have seen complaining here on revleft. I cannot speak for whether one or two people are lining up behind SA's pettiness in other off-forum outlets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pinkoooo]

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

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

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

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

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

In the meantime: GROW UP!!!

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

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

because you can't.

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

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

[Yazman]

MODERATION ACTION:

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

This is not a warning.

[Lucretia]

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

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

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

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

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

In the meantime: GROW UP!!!

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

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

because you can't.

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

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

I think you are conflating "building a socialist movement" with "building Socialist Alternative." (And why would endorsing your candidate represent a desire to build either, since, as you say, "few people join socialist sects [and movements] from electoral campaigns"? Contradict yourself much?) I repeat: build your own party. Stop whining that others don't want to do it for you. It's really petty and, frankly, kind of odd.

[Crux]

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

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

Different in what respect? That she was running for a lower-level political office in a district where one of the two main political parties was so dominant that the other main political party didn't bother to run a candidate? So the pay-off is what? A third-party candidacy would likely receive 15 or 20% of the vote rather than 2%, and mostly from voters who simply wanted to oppose the Democrat rather than out of any convictions for the platform of the third-party candidate.

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

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

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

Oddly enough, they and fellow-travelers in their tendency are the only ones I have seen complaining here on revleft. I cannot speak for whether one or two people are lining up behind SA's pettiness in other off-forum outlets.

I don't think pinkoooo are in Soc. Alt. Neither is Andrew Ray Gorman.
Nor most of the people commenting here
and here.
Or indeed the number of other articles The North Star has run on the Sawant Campaign.

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

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

[Lucretia]

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


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


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


I don't think pinkoooo are in Soc. Alt. Neither is Andrew Ray Gorman.
Nor most of the people commenting here
and here.
Or indeed the number of other articles The North Star has run on the Sawant Campaign.



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

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

[Dobomo]

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

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

[Crux]

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

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

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

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

I don't think that corresponds to the reality of the SP's (CWI) work in Yarra, in so far as the elected positions we've had in Yarra seem to have been able to amplify our activity rather than take away from it. Of course, getting elected to any position in the first place, as a revolutionary socialist, requires extensive ground work anyway. Not saying there aren't dangers and limits in "electoralism" as such. Standing in elections and getting elected is not an end in itself, it's just an auxiliary to all of the other struggles one is involved in. I think a pretty good baseline is this, we must always be ready to lose seats rather than lose our principles.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And I think that comparison, which the ISO sometimes go to, is wildly off, for several reasons. First, the SEP was running a presidential campaign and if I know them right not interested in reaching out to other orgs in the slightest.
Meanwhile Kshama Sawant, Soc. Alt. member, was running for the Washington State House of representatives against the Democratic speaker of house in a two-way race and in a left-leaning district (and with the endorsement of the Freedom Socialist Party, The Stranger and CWA Local 37083). I assume you see how that is fundamentally different from a presidential campaign of our own, let alone the SEP's presidential campaign.

The ISO does not have one standard position on the relationship of radicals to elections because we see it as always conditional, based on what's going on in wider society. Campaigns such as this may provide a platform for propagandizing, but if it's not directly and organically connected to a larger movement, then it can't really do much more than that generally - as well as maybe raise the profile of the candidate or party involved. There was really little broader principled disatisfaction that could have made a campaign like this a rallying point for people moving leftwards.

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

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

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

Fine, other people who disagree with the ISO are also complaining about a now long-over campaign in one district of one state.

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

Well that commenator was wrong if they said that - elections can play a role: eithier a campaign as a rallying point or protest; an indication of larger public trends; and so on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It begins by noting how loooong the Soc. Alt. article, how it is a "tome" and how small Soc. Alt. are. In other words, petty un-political bullshit.

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

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

You must have misread the article because this argument is not made in it:

An analysis not focused on a single local race for state office would have been a little more sober about the outcome for left candidates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, I've been involved in several election campaigns, including unity lists with other organizations on the left, the idea that electoral campaigns "take away" from ordinary political work is, of course, absolute nonsense. Is it hard work? Sure it is. Does it *take away* from the other work we're doing? Quite the opposite. Of course, ISO has participated in electoral campaigns so they should know this.

Fucking up our priorites and sucking useful organizing time was pretty much our experience with elections other than in 2000... when there was a broader sentiment rejecting Democrats, neo-liberalism, and lesser-evilism and Nader could be a rallying point for some of that anti-globalization sentiment.

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

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

Or they could look at the experience of the Sawant campaign. But perhaps the entire article is, ironically given the accusations, you and it levels, not about any kind of genuine debate on how to relate to the elections, but just a dishonest attempt at sectarian point scoring?

What has been built by this? What progress has been made? How are conditions for struggle better now that 30% of voters passivly cast their ballots for unknown poltical reasons?

[Jimmie Higgins]

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

No we've been in coalitions with SA and we have endoresed protest candidates in the past. We just don't think this is a useful strategy in present circumstances because frankly, such a campaign represents no wider class force, it has support and that is good on the level that Majakovskij described: gaining some credibility or precident for a socialist candidate in that district. I could be wrong but I honestly doubt that if a cerdible Republican was in the race that Sawant would have recieved the votes like that because I don't think this campaign represented a broader shift in consiousness.

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

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

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

We also criticized soc-dem Bernie Sanders winning an election while at the same time recognizing that there are some benifical things in that people are not as scared off by the tag "socialist" - but his positions and politcs give support to the Democratic party and his election did not materially help workers organize or even represent any sort of sentiment among the working class - people liked his positions on some things and that's about the extent.

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

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

[Lucretia]

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

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

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

[Crux]

Well then let me give you guys the shortest answer possible. Yes, I believe we can build from this result, "we" not just denoting my comrades in Soc. Alt. but the left generally, well in Seattle anyway.
Ty Moore - Lessons From the Vote Sawant Campaign

Kshama Sawant - Building a United Left Challenge to Democrats and Republicans

[redredred]

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

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

[redredred]

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



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

[blake 3:17]

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

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

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

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

Well then let me give you guys the shortest answer possible. Yes, I believe we can build from this result, "we" not just denoting my comrades in Soc. Alt. but the left generally, well in Seattle anyway.
Ty Moore - Lessons From the Vote Sawant Campaign

Kshama Sawant - Building a United Left Challenge to Democrats and Republicans

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

[redredred]

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

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

[Jimmie Higgins]

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

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

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

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

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

[Le Socialiste]

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

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