The ISO and the Kshama Sawant Campaign.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

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

http://votesawant.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question is..why not, ISO?

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

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

Again, why not ISO?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

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

[Jimmie Higgins]

Again, why not ISO?

ooooooh these call-outs get so melodramatic![/squeel]

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

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

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

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

So by largest presence, in US revolutionary group terms, you mean like 50-80 people or something? I'm guessing that you don't mean you wanted a passive endorsement - like 80-some-odd votes would make a difference. So you want to know why we didn't divert out time and energy away from the things we were involved in (anti-police brutality, anti-budget cuts, etc) to help build another group's strategy and organization?

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

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

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

I mean this as a respectful question, my intention is not sectarian bashing.

This frankly does not seem truthful when the very next section is an unfounded implication of sectarianism as policy in the ISO...

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

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

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

[Lenina Rosenweg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialist Alternative has critically supported Jill Stein and other candidates.

[Dabrowski]

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

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This expresses the debate much better than I could

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



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

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

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

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

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

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

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

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

[Raúl Duke]

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

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

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

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

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

[Le Socialiste]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed.
Shaun Harkin
For ISO Steering Committee

[Jimmie Higgins]

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

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

[Crux]

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

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

[Prof. Oblivion]

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

[Lenina Rosenweg]

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

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

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

[Prof. Oblivion]

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

[Crux]

Response from the ISO. Which gets some well deserved critique in the comments field as well as this: Coalitions, Elections, and Kshama Sawant: An Open Letter to Socialist Worker

[Ottoraptor]

So the CWI is upset that the ISO wouldn't help build one of its own branches and participate in their annual ritual of participating unions? Cry me a river. I don't particularly like the ISO, but out of all the things happening in the Pacific Northwest a campaign for a state representative (it wasn't even a federal level election) for a candidate, who ran on a pretty vague and populist platform and in the end couldn't pull off anything near 50% of the vote despite their being no republican challenger, is probably the least interesting thing out there. But you know we must participate in every single election we can because our moralizing and ineffectiveness will spread socialism. Let's just try and build our party and try to get everyone to follow us. Any socialist group who fails to help us in our party building rituals is sectarian!

[pinkoooo]

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

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

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

[pinkoooo]

HI Lewina,

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

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

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

[Crux]

So the CWI is upset that the ISO wouldn't help build one of its own branches and participate in their annual ritual of participating unions? Cry me a river. I don't particularly like the ISO, but out of all the things happening in the Pacific Northwest a campaign for a state representative (it wasn't even a federal level election) for a candidate, who ran on a pretty vague and populist platform and in the end couldn't pull off anything near 50% of the vote despite their being no republican challenger, is probably the least interesting thing out there. But you know we must participate in every single election we can because our moralizing and ineffectiveness will spread socialism. Let's just try and build our party and try to get everyone to follow us. Any socialist group who fails to help us in our party building rituals is sectarian!

What dishonest drivel. So name another election where Soc. Alt. has partaken in this "ritual" (and it can't be the boston city council campaign in 2007). I'm waiting. I mean Soc. Alt''s been around since the mid80's if this is a "ritual" surely you must be able to come with another example from the last 25 years? Oh wait. You won't.

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

[Lucretia]

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

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

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

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