I think hexbear’s rigid purity (which is why I’m here tbh) makes it vulnerable to this kind common of smear work. It’s very easy to keep asking someone questions over and over until you have things that can be taken the wrong way and used to smear them with at least some portion of their base. - this is a common media tactic you need to immunise yourself against. The entire point is to turn away the most pure parts of the base.
I mean, whatever, it’s electoralism, by our nature we have little interest in it; but saying “I’ll have Zionists working for me” in one of the most Jewish places in the world is a factual statement, not necessarily and ideological one. It simply doesn’t mean that Mamdani being voted in is a bad thing. And it’s certainly not something to be upset about?
We have high standards, but regardless of what we think, he’s a leftist pipeline whether he succeeds or whether he fails, similar to Bernie. Ideally, he shifts the bounds of what it’s possible to think/support in the US leftwards a little.
My point, really, is don’t let perfect be the enemy of good, especially when it’s something we’re not invested in.
Give me the strength to endure what I can’t change, the courage to change what I can change, and the wisdom to know the difference.
He’s a pipeline, definitely. A left to right pipeline. Getting leftists engaged and then getting them to defend Zionism is not moving anyone left, but it is definitely moving people right
You believe that Mamdani, an actual socialist, is running to move people to the right? I think it’s very clear the actual political right feels the opposite. I also think it’s clear from his previous statements that he’s not a Zionist, nor is he seeking to move people that way. This is someone who said he’d turn Netanyahu over to the ICC.
The purpose of a system is what it does. If we lived in a full blown monarchy with literally 0 input from the masses to determine what happened in politics, people would revolt very quickly. What bourgeois democracy allows is for ruling the masses with their consent by having reformist candidates win elections every once in a while. The reforms that these candidates secure when they are elected can then be safely taken away when necessary to extract more profit. With this in perspective, it becomes clear that even with the best intentions, someone who runs as a reformist with no ties to a revolutionary structure is doomed to (at best) legitimate and perpetuate the system they might be critical of.
On the other hand, it is possible to participate in elections productively. It’s a mistake to dismiss elections wholesale when they can be used as tools. The way that would look is that a candidate, nominated or endorsed by a revolutionary organization, runs for a position. They would use their campaign primarily as a way to promote that organization or to try to accomplish tactical (not strategic, strategic goals can’t be accomplished electorally) goals that might advance the movement. In this sense, Mamdani is putting the cart before the horse. He is running with a DSA endorsement that only goes one way, he has their full support and NYCDSA is, for as long as he remains relevant, entirely invested in Mamdani’s project. That’s not good strategically, what I think a leftist org that’s trying to build power should do is instead make demands out of their candidates and enforce party disciple among them, make sure to reach the people who like their candidates’ platforms (especially the more radical items) and get them on board with more than just one candidate. They shouldn’t be pot-commited to a successful candidate in a big race, it deradicalizes their members.
There’s a real problem with “soap opera” style politics in America. Maybe elsewhere too? People follow these politicians like celebrities and root for their favorites like their Characters in a never ending TV show. There’s a rotating cast of “villains” too! Today it’s Boebert or Marjorie, yesterday it was Madison Cawthorn, Rick Santorum before that, and on and on.
There is a difference in knowing something and saying it, especially as a part of a political platform.
I may know simply by virtue of being in America, I’ll have interacted with a Nazi as a factual matter. That is different than me saying, “Yeah, I’ll interact with Nazis,” which is different than propagandizing the fact I’ll interact with Nazis.
Is the media repeatedly going to attack this angle? Yes. It’s why when I saw the NYT article where the author alleges he doesn’t think Zohran is anti-zionist I ignored it as a nothing-burger. Getting caught up doing it yourself demonstrates this is a massive fucking misstep at best.
Do you think he’d make the same misstep if they repeatedly grilled him on whether he’d work with Klansmen? Or if they used the word Nazi or Nazi sympathsizers? I double he’s planning on grilling his sanitation workers on what they think about white genocide and replacement or asking them their opinions on the Jewish question either. But we would still look at him sideways if he said, “I’ll have white supremacists working for me,” in this hellhole of a nation.
I’ve argued with XHS about his stance on Zohran, them saying this is a result of us rawdogging a cactus due to an inability for us to form any type of militant front is fucking Evergreen.
He is just triangulating and moving right to gain greater proximity to DNC establishment types, people he is now having call shots on his campaign. This is not someone hiding their power level, these are not even remotely clever answers from someone being savvy. It is a consistent rightward rebranding per the bourgeois liberal electoralist charade.
Also, we have high standards? This is genocide and it is very fucking unpopular. If there is a pipeline here, it is to capture outrage and mollify it into status quo liberalism. DSA is not organized and it has no education program. It’s all just fucking around and pinning hopes on one guy not being more self-interested than principled and competent, and the electoralist “wing”, such as it is, is allergic to both of those things.
Folks really showing their liberalism with their unwavering belief in the secret principled leftism of the guy pulling the rug out from under them in the exact same way 5 other identical guys have done every couple years.
Nobody on hexbear should be surprised that a “left” organization with zero principled discipline doesn’t produce principled campaigns with discipline. Instead, it produces an endless litany of self-interested climbers doing milquetoast liberal reformism at best, as moneyed interests dominate their campaigns.
I mean, I advocated for wait and see because I knew from the get go they weren’t going to listen to all the people dogpiling them. I see what WildWeezing420 meant though when they said their big issue is older members still falling for the same trick. Most people I know that seemed hype for him in my age bracket (early 20s) weren’t paying enough attention to Bernie and AOC to get why it happened and no one reads theory (especially lenin!) so I kinda ignored it. Seeing people justify the need to say he’d collaborate with Nazis as some 4D chess has rattled me. Some of the people I’ve seen pulling this bullshit have been organizing longer than I’ve used two digits for my age.
I just keep telling people that without discipline you’re just leaving “candidates” to face up against the (strong) forces of liberalism with no counterweight. This means opportunists will happily take your free labor for unserious (or worse) campaigns and even well-meaning people will be prone to crumpling against media forces alone, and that’s before the cops start routinely harassing you or protecting the fashy vigilantes that keep showing up to your house.
When I say this it gets decent upbears but the electoralists never engage. I think the concept of discipline must actually threaten them on some personal level, like they don’t want to think about how much of their own time they are potentially wasting.
It’s because that discipline would then also be applied to them as well. Militancy is only fun when you’re already done the work and have leverage. Risking your job to form a union isn’t. It’s not glamorous sitting there talking to your coworkers about how collective bargaining gives you leverage.
I dunno I kind of enjoy that stuff. And unfortunately a good number of people do at least romanticize it and use labor work as caché, seeking out positions not for the cause but because of how they’d like to think of themselves in it. I’m thinking of truly incompetent labor organizers I know, folks that don’t do a very good job nor improve and it’s because ultimately they are still self-interested, even when that self-interest comes in the form of making a show of self-sacrifice. I hope that makes sense!
If I was in NYC DSA would be focused on building my caucus and trying to dominate education and an onboarding process so that incoming members all had positive relationships with my caucus as well as biases towards us. Having at least one project into which to plug people would also be useful, but it should follow from embedding in community and having direct conversations with locals in targeted areas to determine what they care about most, what is hurting them most.
One of DSA’s flaws is that it continues electoral thought towards putting the cart before the horse, e.g. revolution through resolution. A good resolution is secondary to building good org members. It would follow naturally from the organizing work that has to happen first. Finally creating discipline requires having enough trust and support for the idea in advance, otherwise even if you manage to pass the resolution, which is difficult if the org itself is too electoral or incoherent, you will have a hard time actually enforcing it.
But once at an organized stage like that, discipline would look like needing to follow key org lines or get sanctioned/removed on top of unendorsed, requiring that all campaign resources come from grassroots sourcing, primarily org work, requiring that candidates come from the org itself and after a period of onboarding, education, and various pledges and interviews, and a requirement that electoral work rotates such that members do not regularly get their paycheck from the mere existence of campaigns. Some amount of this may run counter to election law, but would be worked around in the same way bourgeois parties do, relying on one main carrot/stick to enforce the “soft” rules, e.g. being very strict about support snd endorsement and volunteer labor such that running foul is actually damaging to the candidate.
It’s all just fucking around and pinning hopes on one guy not being more self-interested than principled and competent, and the electoralist “wing”, such as it is, is allergic to both of those things.
That is a good point. False hope, like gambling, often emerges from not having a strong embedding in something real that is paying off. Indulging the fantasy instead of confronting the reality.
The reason that Americans resort to so much adventurism is the same reason why so many pin hopes on bourgeois politicians that owe them nothing: no other political outlet for hope. They are not organized, they are not active.
The state the left is in is embarrassing. The fact we’re at baby-steps of “proving a socialist mayor can run a city while making democrats look rightwing” is a terrible state of affairs, but we should probably play that hand. I don’t think he’ll have the effective power to purge every zionist in new yorks affairs.
I think it’s better to shake hands with a zionist for a while before personally cutting their throat at a later date than to remain powerless.
I don’t think he’ll have the effective power to purge every zionist in new yorks affairs.
Again, I’m not even saying that much is the ask! But if we’re arguing optics, which is the only argument anyone makes in defense of the failures of his entryism attempt, he has repeatedly shown a willingness and savviness to stay on message and dodge the damn question.
If we’re arguing that he needs to fear almighty Zion because we’re too weak to face them, I wanna see him go apologize like he apologized to the pigs. No half measures.
The only hopes I have from this campaign is primarily staked on the hardening of his base that will come about when this goes sideways, again, because entryism is a failed tactic, and hoping the number hardened outweigh those that fall into nihilistic doomerism. Hopefully there are enough people that are spared from worsening conditions that it outweighs the harm and deaths done by our pathetic attempts at international solidarity.
I agree you must engage in the arena, if not simply for the ability to engage with the masses. I’m not arguing against strategic electoralism in that sense.
The fact that almost a decade after Bernie was first ratfucked by the DNC, the American left still pins their hopes on a single mayoral candidate (in NYC of all places) tells you everything you need to know about this pipeline.
Bernie boasted one million strong volunteers during his 2020 primary campaign. You’d think that even after he got screwed again, it would have snowballed into a nationwide movement to run socialist mayor and city council candidates to take over the political machineries starting from the municipal level all across the country.
It’s almost amazing to see such energy dissipated into almost nothing right after Bernie conceded and failed to win a single concession, not even healthcare-related, at the height of Covid pandemic for the working class.
the American left still pins their hopes on a single mayoral candidate
what hopes? you’re revolutionary-jacketing. His policies would be a meaningful improvement in the lives of his constituents, which is exactly what you want from a candidate for mayor. Everything he’s said on geopolitics is an unforced error or Obama phone calls, and completely irrelevant to the job he’s applying for (which is why he should shut the fuck up and talk about $7 halal cart instead).
To a degree, I think the existence of Hexbear proves that pipelines exist.
Much of the original population of chapo/hexbear were people who were hyped for bernie 10 years ago before witnessing what electoral politics does to the left, and how even mild reforms got ratfucked. That’s why this thread exists - it’s the same visceral disgust that (I think) lead to the creation of this site.
but then again, in this thread we are still discussing the merit of electing democrats. it doesn’t seem that there was a broad shift leftward towards more radical/coherent politics.
anecdotal, but a lot of my PSL comrades got re-engaged in politics b/c of Bernie (me included). but being in PSL, we’ve all moved past investing in Democrats as a winning strategy, and were radicalized further by his failure.
how statistically significant are we vs. people who just got fully demoralized by politics, or even moved right? who knows, honestly - our org is growing a lot, but still relatively niche looking at the larger horizon of politics.
i do think it’s worth agitating around the failures of these socdem candidates though. and i’m not even telling people not to vote for Zohran if they live there (NYC), like sure he’s a genuine harm reduction candidate and voting is low effort, go for it, just manage your expectations and find areas of political work where this stuff isn’t a core part of the orgs strategy.
IME the people you recruit will reflect the method of recruitment. Protests, encampments, unions, music, doorknocking, posting… will primarily bring in the type of people who are interested in that kind of activity.
If a lot of people become engaged in one thing, some of them won’t like it and they might meet others who’d prefer to do something else and organically split off into something else. Sometimes people who meet organizing as tenants form an art collective, but tenant organizing isn’t a “pipeline” to art collectives.
It is possible to intentionally bring people in through one kind of activity and provide the conditions such that many of them will see the wisdom in moving on to another kind of activity that would be more useful. It’s even possible to use the fact that you know the intake activity is doomed to fail as a way to hurry people along.
But it will only happen in any substantial way with A Plan. Not organically. Not by sort of vaguely having information around.
You need to have a plan of inoculation that explains what’s happening and why, and help the new people to see how power could be better built and wielded. From the beginning, you are talking about other possibilities and maybe even start setting those things up. So that when the original actions end as predicted, you don’t look like a big Loser. “OK, that didn’t work. On to the next thing!” and everyone already knows what the next thing is. Otherwise, some people will fall off thinking “This is stupid there’s no point” and some will get stuck in the cycle of tinkering trying to get it perfect next time.
public criticisms of the inherent failures of entryism are a (very small, this forum is niche af and not getting less so) part of that pipeline, though. without that criticism, the absorption of these types of candidates just demoralizes people into apolitical inaction or makes them think democrats are the best they’re gonna get. “democrats inherently suck and here’s why, focus on other types of political action” isn’t the same as “Zohran isn’t a harm reduction candidate vs Cuomo, don’t vote for him if you live in NYC”
is he doing entryism? is he trying to change the party nationally or is he trying to win one office? All the capitulations are worse for not being necessary in any way electorally.
is he doing entryism? is he trying to change the party nationally or is he trying to win one office?
beats me that’s one to ask the NYC DSA folks. i assume they run these candidates in the hopes of changing the Democrats from within but i’m not in that org.
All the capitulations are worse for not being necessary in any way electorally.
i think there’s a lot of theory of mind errors ITT and in hexbear’s discussions on a mayoral election in general, but maybe i’m doing one myself with my understanding that the DSA could never tea party the democrats so I don’t expect them to be trying. if they don’t understand it’s an impossible task maybe they would try.
DSA could never tea party the democrats so I don’t expect them to be trying
My areas chapter still argues about this. It is not a resolved question in the DSA at all. I still see people saying we need democrat coalitions.
It’s currently the central struggle I’ve seen when looking at discussions in the national board.
Hell, I see some arguing Marxist-Leninist is a failed experiment that is either less useful or equally as ineffective as social democracy.
I saw someone post on the DSA national forum that the failures of DSA’s left is that they don’t recognize this is a Social Democracy movement today, that basically saw responses split down the middle.
I’ve seen people say this campaign working is proof that entryism works and can be used for the socialist movement.
Over the last year, The Agitator has published numerous pieces arguing for recommitting to the strategy of Bernie’s 2016 campaign to remain within the struggle on the Democratic party ballot line, which is a tactic of democratic socialists dating back to the 60s in fighting within the Democratic party. That felt more relevant during the Biden era, when parts of DSA felt like running away from the Democratic Party was the best option to pledge a new way forward. Yet, the primary victory of Mamdani puts us back in the same place of fighting it out against liberals and everyone to their right. The victory forced national media to suddenly grapple again with the idea of socialism within the Democratic Party
This is the caucus with the largest sway in NYC DSA, and a major playing in shaping its ideological tendency at a national level. Attempting to tea party the democrats is very much on the table.
Some of the “mind reading” is just people trying not to dox themselves.
i’m fairly positive the right wing of the org (who hold the most sway in NYC) do think they can tea party the democrats, when i said “beats me” it was more that I have no idea what their strategy around Zohran, specifically, is and don’t want to speak out of turn on shit I have zero firsthand knowledge of. I did also live in Brooklyn from the late 2010s - early 2020s before leaving for cheaper pastures and felt out the DSA before deciding against it, the more radical people I met there lamented how difficult it was to get non-electoral work off the ground, the rest seemed extremely gung ho about electing the Right Democrats. things might have changed since then, anecdotes gonna anecdote, etc, so anyone closer to this stuff can feel free to chime in and correct me if i’m off base at all.
if I didn’t think this were a core part of their strategy that’s ineffective I probably would just butt out of these convos, but for whatever marginal value pointing people toward other possibilities on the internet has - eh, i decide to post
Hmmm, I think the question to ask here; 'If Mamdani doesn’t ask his hired people what are their thoughts on Zionism, then there’ll be Zionists." Hexbear is fervently anti-zionism, and I am too, and some people (I think anyway) are mad at how Zionists aren’t at least kept out of his administration by being anti-zionist everywhere including sanitation.
I mean, isn’t this why we have like those questions for joining here? Figure out if you’re fit to engage here with a left-wing perspective? Even if not necessarily all of us are theory-minded?
He’s just one guy though, he can’t start that strong.
I’m from the UK, and I’d like to see a whole raft of strong measures passed, such as BDS becoming an enforced national law, companies that work with Israel barred from the UK, people that support the IDF slapped with terror charges, and many lobbyists/journalists being slapped with genocide charges… And that’s just if we’re given a little room to play around with pre-revolutionary politics, before concerning ourselves with what they actually deserve.
I don’t think it’s possible to implement good left policies without there also being a big enough, softer, leftist movement to give us space to operate - and while, of course, we’re going to object to the softer lefts views, it doesn’t mean their existence isn’t valuable to us as a pipeline and to shift peoples frame of reference leftwards.
I think hexbear’s rigid purity (which is why I’m here tbh) makes it vulnerable to this kind common of smear work. It’s very easy to keep asking someone questions over and over until you have things that can be taken the wrong way and used to smear them with at least some portion of their base. - this is a common media tactic you need to immunise yourself against. The entire point is to turn away the most pure parts of the base.
I mean, whatever, it’s electoralism, by our nature we have little interest in it; but saying “I’ll have Zionists working for me” in one of the most Jewish places in the world is a factual statement, not necessarily and ideological one. It simply doesn’t mean that Mamdani being voted in is a bad thing. And it’s certainly not something to be upset about?
We have high standards, but regardless of what we think, he’s a leftist pipeline whether he succeeds or whether he fails, similar to Bernie. Ideally, he shifts the bounds of what it’s possible to think/support in the US leftwards a little.
My point, really, is don’t let perfect be the enemy of good, especially when it’s something we’re not invested in.
Give me the strength to endure what I can’t change, the courage to change what I can change, and the wisdom to know the difference.
He’s a pipeline, definitely. A left to right pipeline. Getting leftists engaged and then getting them to defend Zionism is not moving anyone left, but it is definitely moving people right
You believe that Mamdani, an actual socialist, is running to move people to the right? I think it’s very clear the actual political right feels the opposite. I also think it’s clear from his previous statements that he’s not a Zionist, nor is he seeking to move people that way. This is someone who said he’d turn Netanyahu over to the ICC.
The purpose of a system is what it does. If we lived in a full blown monarchy with literally 0 input from the masses to determine what happened in politics, people would revolt very quickly. What bourgeois democracy allows is for ruling the masses with their consent by having reformist candidates win elections every once in a while. The reforms that these candidates secure when they are elected can then be safely taken away when necessary to extract more profit. With this in perspective, it becomes clear that even with the best intentions, someone who runs as a reformist with no ties to a revolutionary structure is doomed to (at best) legitimate and perpetuate the system they might be critical of.
On the other hand, it is possible to participate in elections productively. It’s a mistake to dismiss elections wholesale when they can be used as tools. The way that would look is that a candidate, nominated or endorsed by a revolutionary organization, runs for a position. They would use their campaign primarily as a way to promote that organization or to try to accomplish tactical (not strategic, strategic goals can’t be accomplished electorally) goals that might advance the movement. In this sense, Mamdani is putting the cart before the horse. He is running with a DSA endorsement that only goes one way, he has their full support and NYCDSA is, for as long as he remains relevant, entirely invested in Mamdani’s project. That’s not good strategically, what I think a leftist org that’s trying to build power should do is instead make demands out of their candidates and enforce party disciple among them, make sure to reach the people who like their candidates’ platforms (especially the more radical items) and get them on board with more than just one candidate. They shouldn’t be pot-commited to a successful candidate in a big race, it deradicalizes their members.
There’s a real problem with “soap opera” style politics in America. Maybe elsewhere too? People follow these politicians like celebrities and root for their favorites like their Characters in a never ending TV show. There’s a rotating cast of “villains” too! Today it’s Boebert or Marjorie, yesterday it was Madison Cawthorn, Rick Santorum before that, and on and on.
How people don’t see it is frustrating.
There is a difference in knowing something and saying it, especially as a part of a political platform.
I may know simply by virtue of being in America, I’ll have interacted with a Nazi as a factual matter. That is different than me saying, “Yeah, I’ll interact with Nazis,” which is different than propagandizing the fact I’ll interact with Nazis.
Is the media repeatedly going to attack this angle? Yes. It’s why when I saw the NYT article where the author alleges he doesn’t think Zohran is anti-zionist I ignored it as a nothing-burger. Getting caught up doing it yourself demonstrates this is a massive fucking misstep at best.
Do you think he’d make the same misstep if they repeatedly grilled him on whether he’d work with Klansmen? Or if they used the word Nazi or Nazi sympathsizers? I double he’s planning on grilling his sanitation workers on what they think about white genocide and replacement or asking them their opinions on the Jewish question either. But we would still look at him sideways if he said, “I’ll have white supremacists working for me,” in this hellhole of a nation.
I’ve argued with XHS about his stance on Zohran, them saying this is a result of us rawdogging a cactus due to an inability for us to form any type of militant front is fucking Evergreen.
He is just triangulating and moving right to gain greater proximity to DNC establishment types, people he is now having call shots on his campaign. This is not someone hiding their power level, these are not even remotely clever answers from someone being savvy. It is a consistent rightward rebranding per the bourgeois liberal electoralist charade.
Also, we have high standards? This is genocide and it is very fucking unpopular. If there is a pipeline here, it is to capture outrage and mollify it into status quo liberalism. DSA is not organized and it has no education program. It’s all just fucking around and pinning hopes on one guy not being more self-interested than principled and competent, and the electoralist “wing”, such as it is, is allergic to both of those things.
Don’t you know? Not wanting someone to say they’d collaborate with Nazis, sometimes knowingly, is purity testing.
They’re National Socialists and we need left unity!
/iwanttoenditalldealingwiththesepeople
Folks really showing their liberalism with their unwavering belief in the secret principled leftism of the guy pulling the rug out from under them in the exact same way 5 other identical guys have done every couple years.
Nobody on hexbear should be surprised that a “left” organization with zero principled discipline doesn’t produce principled campaigns with discipline. Instead, it produces an endless litany of self-interested climbers doing milquetoast liberal reformism at best, as moneyed interests dominate their campaigns.
I mean, I advocated for wait and see because I knew from the get go they weren’t going to listen to all the people dogpiling them. I see what WildWeezing420 meant though when they said their big issue is older members still falling for the same trick. Most people I know that seemed hype for him in my age bracket (early 20s) weren’t paying enough attention to Bernie and AOC to get why it happened and no one reads theory (especially lenin!) so I kinda ignored it. Seeing people justify the need to say he’d collaborate with Nazis as some 4D chess has rattled me. Some of the people I’ve seen pulling this bullshit have been organizing longer than I’ve used two digits for my age.
I just keep telling people that without discipline you’re just leaving “candidates” to face up against the (strong) forces of liberalism with no counterweight. This means opportunists will happily take your free labor for unserious (or worse) campaigns and even well-meaning people will be prone to crumpling against media forces alone, and that’s before the cops start routinely harassing you or protecting the fashy vigilantes that keep showing up to your house.
When I say this it gets decent upbears but the electoralists never engage. I think the concept of discipline must actually threaten them on some personal level, like they don’t want to think about how much of their own time they are potentially wasting.
It’s because that discipline would then also be applied to them as well. Militancy is only fun when you’re already done the work and have leverage. Risking your job to form a union isn’t. It’s not glamorous sitting there talking to your coworkers about how collective bargaining gives you leverage.
I dunno I kind of enjoy that stuff. And unfortunately a good number of people do at least romanticize it and use labor work as caché, seeking out positions not for the cause but because of how they’d like to think of themselves in it. I’m thinking of truly incompetent labor organizers I know, folks that don’t do a very good job nor improve and it’s because ultimately they are still self-interested, even when that self-interest comes in the form of making a show of self-sacrifice. I hope that makes sense!
If you were in NYC DSA what would your proposal be to create discipline?
I’d vote to censure Mamdani over this statement and force him to publicly denounce it or get booted from the org.
If I was in NYC DSA would be focused on building my caucus and trying to dominate education and an onboarding process so that incoming members all had positive relationships with my caucus as well as biases towards us. Having at least one project into which to plug people would also be useful, but it should follow from embedding in community and having direct conversations with locals in targeted areas to determine what they care about most, what is hurting them most.
One of DSA’s flaws is that it continues electoral thought towards putting the cart before the horse, e.g. revolution through resolution. A good resolution is secondary to building good org members. It would follow naturally from the organizing work that has to happen first. Finally creating discipline requires having enough trust and support for the idea in advance, otherwise even if you manage to pass the resolution, which is difficult if the org itself is too electoral or incoherent, you will have a hard time actually enforcing it.
But once at an organized stage like that, discipline would look like needing to follow key org lines or get sanctioned/removed on top of unendorsed, requiring that all campaign resources come from grassroots sourcing, primarily org work, requiring that candidates come from the org itself and after a period of onboarding, education, and various pledges and interviews, and a requirement that electoral work rotates such that members do not regularly get their paycheck from the mere existence of campaigns. Some amount of this may run counter to election law, but would be worked around in the same way bourgeois parties do, relying on one main carrot/stick to enforce the “soft” rules, e.g. being very strict about support snd endorsement and volunteer labor such that running foul is actually damaging to the candidate.
Also this was funny timing:
https://hexbear.net/comment/6591284
That is a good point. False hope, like gambling, often emerges from not having a strong embedding in something real that is paying off. Indulging the fantasy instead of confronting the reality.
The reason that Americans resort to so much adventurism is the same reason why so many pin hopes on bourgeois politicians that owe them nothing: no other political outlet for hope. They are not organized, they are not active.
The slot machines will eventually reward you with electoral Sankara if you just sit there long enough.
The state the left is in is embarrassing. The fact we’re at baby-steps of “proving a socialist mayor can run a city while making democrats look rightwing” is a terrible state of affairs, but we should probably play that hand. I don’t think he’ll have the effective power to purge every zionist in new yorks affairs.
I think it’s better to shake hands with a zionist for a while before personally cutting their throat at a later date than to remain powerless.
Again, I’m not even saying that much is the ask! But if we’re arguing optics, which is the only argument anyone makes in defense of the failures of his entryism attempt, he has repeatedly shown a willingness and savviness to stay on message and dodge the damn question.
If we’re arguing that he needs to fear almighty Zion because we’re too weak to face them, I wanna see him go apologize like he apologized to the pigs. No half measures.
The only hopes I have from this campaign is primarily staked on the hardening of his base that will come about when this goes sideways, again, because entryism is a failed tactic, and hoping the number hardened outweigh those that fall into nihilistic doomerism. Hopefully there are enough people that are spared from worsening conditions that it outweighs the harm and deaths done by our pathetic attempts at international solidarity.
I also hope people are afforded some respite, and that some are simply hardened.
I agree that entryism is a failed tactic, but engaging in the arena is a must, otherwise you’re simply conceding power while still remaining a target.
I agree you must engage in the arena, if not simply for the ability to engage with the masses. I’m not arguing against strategic electoralism in that sense.
can someone prove to me that pipelines actually exist, and are not just trying to make dems look better / more left / reformable etc.
The fact that almost a decade after Bernie was first ratfucked by the DNC, the American left still pins their hopes on a single mayoral candidate (in NYC of all places) tells you everything you need to know about this pipeline.
Bernie boasted one million strong volunteers during his 2020 primary campaign. You’d think that even after he got screwed again, it would have snowballed into a nationwide movement to run socialist mayor and city council candidates to take over the political machineries starting from the municipal level all across the country.
It’s almost amazing to see such energy dissipated into almost nothing right after Bernie conceded and failed to win a single concession, not even healthcare-related, at the height of Covid pandemic for the working class.
Next populist democrat is the one! 99% of
gamblersdemocratic socialists quit before hitting big!what hopes? you’re revolutionary-jacketing. His policies would be a meaningful improvement in the lives of his constituents, which is exactly what you want from a candidate for mayor. Everything he’s said on geopolitics is an unforced error or Obama phone calls, and completely irrelevant to the job he’s applying for (which is why he should shut the fuck up and talk about $7 halal cart instead).
To a degree, I think the existence of Hexbear proves that pipelines exist.
Much of the original population of chapo/hexbear were people who were hyped for bernie 10 years ago before witnessing what electoral politics does to the left, and how even mild reforms got ratfucked. That’s why this thread exists - it’s the same visceral disgust that (I think) lead to the creation of this site.
but then again, in this thread we are still discussing the merit of electing democrats. it doesn’t seem that there was a broad shift leftward towards more radical/coherent politics.
We’re discussing the merits of whether it’s good leftism to say you’d work with Nazis too!
anecdotal, but a lot of my PSL comrades got re-engaged in politics b/c of Bernie (me included). but being in PSL, we’ve all moved past investing in Democrats as a winning strategy, and were radicalized further by his failure. how statistically significant are we vs. people who just got fully demoralized by politics, or even moved right? who knows, honestly - our org is growing a lot, but still relatively niche looking at the larger horizon of politics.
i do think it’s worth agitating around the failures of these socdem candidates though. and i’m not even telling people not to vote for Zohran if they live there (NYC), like sure he’s a genuine harm reduction candidate and voting is low effort, go for it, just manage your expectations and find areas of political work where this stuff isn’t a core part of the orgs strategy.
IME the people you recruit will reflect the method of recruitment. Protests, encampments, unions, music, doorknocking, posting… will primarily bring in the type of people who are interested in that kind of activity.
If a lot of people become engaged in one thing, some of them won’t like it and they might meet others who’d prefer to do something else and organically split off into something else. Sometimes people who meet organizing as tenants form an art collective, but tenant organizing isn’t a “pipeline” to art collectives.
It is possible to intentionally bring people in through one kind of activity and provide the conditions such that many of them will see the wisdom in moving on to another kind of activity that would be more useful. It’s even possible to use the fact that you know the intake activity is doomed to fail as a way to hurry people along.
But it will only happen in any substantial way with A Plan. Not organically. Not by sort of vaguely having information around.
You need to have a plan of inoculation that explains what’s happening and why, and help the new people to see how power could be better built and wielded. From the beginning, you are talking about other possibilities and maybe even start setting those things up. So that when the original actions end as predicted, you don’t look like a big Loser. “OK, that didn’t work. On to the next thing!” and everyone already knows what the next thing is. Otherwise, some people will fall off thinking “This is stupid there’s no point” and some will get stuck in the cycle of tinkering trying to get it perfect next time.
public criticisms of the inherent failures of entryism are a (very small, this forum is niche af and not getting less so) part of that pipeline, though. without that criticism, the absorption of these types of candidates just demoralizes people into apolitical inaction or makes them think democrats are the best they’re gonna get. “democrats inherently suck and here’s why, focus on other types of political action” isn’t the same as “Zohran isn’t a harm reduction candidate vs Cuomo, don’t vote for him if you live in NYC”
is he doing entryism? is he trying to change the party nationally or is he trying to win one office? All the capitulations are worse for not being necessary in any way electorally.
beats me
that’s one to ask the NYC DSA folks. i assume they run these candidates in the hopes of changing the Democrats from within but i’m not in that org.
agree 100%
i think there’s a lot of theory of mind errors ITT and in hexbear’s discussions on a mayoral election in general, but maybe i’m doing one myself with my understanding that the DSA could never tea party the democrats so I don’t expect them to be trying. if they don’t understand it’s an impossible task maybe they would try.
My areas chapter still argues about this. It is not a resolved question in the DSA at all. I still see people saying we need democrat coalitions.
It’s currently the central struggle I’ve seen when looking at discussions in the national board.
Hell, I see some arguing Marxist-Leninist is a failed experiment that is either less useful or equally as ineffective as social democracy.
I saw someone post on the DSA national forum that the failures of DSA’s left is that they don’t recognize this is a Social Democracy movement today, that basically saw responses split down the middle.
I’ve seen people say this campaign working is proof that entryism works and can be used for the socialist movement.
https://www.socialistmajority.com/theagitator/new-york-democrats-want-socialism
https://www.socialistmajority.com/theagitator/zohran-coalition-govern
This is the caucus with the largest sway in NYC DSA, and a major playing in shaping its ideological tendency at a national level. Attempting to tea party the democrats is very much on the table.
Some of the “mind reading” is just people trying not to dox themselves.
i’m fairly positive the right wing of the org (who hold the most sway in NYC) do think they can tea party the democrats, when i said “beats me” it was more that I have no idea what their strategy around Zohran, specifically, is and don’t want to speak out of turn on shit I have zero firsthand knowledge of. I did also live in Brooklyn from the late 2010s - early 2020s before leaving for cheaper pastures and felt out the DSA before deciding against it, the more radical people I met there lamented how difficult it was to get non-electoral work off the ground, the rest seemed extremely gung ho about electing the Right Democrats. things might have changed since then, anecdotes gonna anecdote, etc, so anyone closer to this stuff can feel free to chime in and correct me if i’m off base at all.
if I didn’t think this were a core part of their strategy that’s ineffective I probably would just butt out of these convos, but for whatever marginal value pointing people toward other possibilities on the internet has - eh, i decide to post
I just post to blow off steam. It’s a fucked up form of self-care for me, lol.
Maybe I should find a mobile version of Peggle…
Hmmm, I think the question to ask here; 'If Mamdani doesn’t ask his hired people what are their thoughts on Zionism, then there’ll be Zionists." Hexbear is fervently anti-zionism, and I am too, and some people (I think anyway) are mad at how Zionists aren’t at least kept out of his administration by being anti-zionist everywhere including sanitation.
I mean, isn’t this why we have like those questions for joining here? Figure out if you’re fit to engage here with a left-wing perspective? Even if not necessarily all of us are theory-minded?
Clearly our screening process isn’t stringent enough, tbh. Source: every thread that mentions mamdani
He’s just one guy though, he can’t start that strong.
I’m from the UK, and I’d like to see a whole raft of strong measures passed, such as BDS becoming an enforced national law, companies that work with Israel barred from the UK, people that support the IDF slapped with terror charges, and many lobbyists/journalists being slapped with genocide charges… And that’s just if we’re given a little room to play around with pre-revolutionary politics, before concerning ourselves with what they actually deserve.
I don’t think it’s possible to implement good left policies without there also being a big enough, softer, leftist movement to give us space to operate - and while, of course, we’re going to object to the softer lefts views, it doesn’t mean their existence isn’t valuable to us as a pipeline and to shift peoples frame of reference leftwards.