Is electoralism completely doomed as an endeavour worth pursuing? Or is there still value in the organizing required to run a campaign?
Part of me knows the entire political machine is entirely a facade. Another side of me thinks having socialists be public-facing representatives may help simply by providing visibility and making other less afraid to identify and organize as socialists.
I'm not sure. I think of the Duma, and how it was ultimately pointless when it came to achieving direct change. Yet it still was an important forum so revolutionaries could point to and say "we are trying, and it is not working, we need to do something else". At least, if I'm remembering correctly.
What do you think? Am I just being a lib? Does it depend on the office you're seeking?
I'm under no illusion of changing it from within. It seems like socialist or communist politicians in America typically only win by accident, or in situations where capital doesn't care about the result.
I think I am viewing electoralism as a way to build that organization that can stand up for itself. Right now the biggest community-serving organizations are run by local churches to feed the unhoused and hungry. Which is great, and I volunteer and donate when I can. That's where it ends, though. There's no local DSA, FnB, or smaller groups from what I can see. Politics is either democrat or republican here and it sucks.
Socialism is not going to be won through voting alone and I think most arguments about electoralism are really between people who only want to vote or run for office and people who want to do more than that.
I think the left should tactically participate in elections: find races socialists can win, win them, and use whatever bully pulpit you get to push for more. It's also important to put up a popular front against fascists as history has shown. The left should focus on races that have maximum power: instead of winning a few seats in a legislature it would be nice to get more executive power: mayors, governors, district attorneys/attorneys general, because winning one governors' race is equivalent to 50 legislative ones.
I do not think socialism can be won without a powerful labor movement and greatly reducing the power the ruling class has over us today. Disempowering the ruling class will require much higher union density, the decopuling of health care from employment, and numerous other victories that will come in part from the ballot box. The near-term struggle, at least in the Global North, probably looks like incremental struggle and winning material gains for workers. Winning elections is necessary but not sufficient for that. Think of it as learning to walk before learning to run - if you can't even win an election, then don't delude yourself into thinking you can win a revolution.
Beyond that, we should remember that the ruling class will never let us vote them away entirely. Socialists who built considerable parliamentary power in the past - Salvador Allende, Olof Palme, etc. - learned very quickly that the bourgeoisie do not play fair when the chips are down. There's a good article on this - "Social Democracy's Breaking Point" - in Jacobin that I recommend people read: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/06/social-democracy-polanyi-great-transformation-welfare-state
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. It's helped give some clarity as I think this through.
I wonder about, in your third paragraph, about winning material victories for workers here where ever we can. I agree 100%. Not getting into identifying information, but local government is completely chudded out. I'm convinced having someone stick their foot in the metaphorical door and start agitating for socialist polickes on tv and in elections could motivate them to move on some issues. Not out of genuine concern for the poor, but from cynicism and fear of backlash. Especially with the huge explosion of unhoused people here lately that's causing pmc and repubs to squawk. I want to counter their garbage and put the fear of God into them.
I do think there's value in legislative seats, since executive positions like governor or mayor are supposed to execute the laws written by the legislature, so they are more legally restrained. A legislator can basically take whatever stance they want. I imagine the loud gadfly rep is better for socialism than a compromising leftist executive
Well, if by electoralism you mean the electoral path to socialism, then yes, it's doomed because we already live under Electoralism whereby the "incumbent regime" is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Revolution is the only way because they will never allow any path to the dictatorship of the proletariat, not only for fear of losing their material conditions, but for fear of the retributive red terror for their centuries of white terror.
I’m not sure. I think of the Duma, and how it was ultimately pointless when it came to achieving direct change. Yet it still was an important forum so revolutionaries could point to and say “we are trying, and it is not working, we need to do something else”. At least, if I’m remembering correctly.
I think this concept applies to American/western conditions. When people start to look to politics they are trained to look to elections first, and as long as there is no left opinion at debates or the nightly news or whatever else then for the vast majority of people the left opinion doesn't exist.
But yeah without any kind of built up dual power we'll never win and we won't be able to do anything even if the system short-circuits up and lets us.
Of course it's completely doomed, it's designed to not change anything
I think it's got a lot of potential in the global south assuming Dem Socs can survive western coup attempts, which isn't always the case unfortunately. In a country like the US however it's unlikely to result in anything other than some visibility, which can be useful provided there's corresponding organization to direct people to.
