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.
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.