I think you’re interpreting the point far, far too narrowly.
I disagree especially when taken into account with how much time he spent writing polemics about how terrible and idiotic all the Kautskyites, social chauvinists, etc were.
Having roles against disparaging anti-elecrorialism is stupid.
I would agree if the rules were against the Leninist view of electoralism as a platform for agitation etc but I believe the rules are more targeted towards your view of vote blue no matter who and the view of electoralism as a means to bring meaningful change. It is however an anarchist community that I’m not 100% acquainted with so I could be wrong but that’s the vibe I get from it and other communities with similar rules.
I believe the rules are more targeted towards your view of vote blue no matter who and the view of electoralism as a means to bring meaningful change.
I never said electoralism was a means to bring meaningful change. My argument is that it’s one tool that can be used to slightly influence the landscape to mitigate the worst of the damage. Obviously real change comes from dual power and organization, voting blue just gives us a slightly easier battle, and slightly slows the descent into fascism.
never said electoralism was a means to bring meaningful change.
I never said you did and If I did it was an accident I meant to say your views of vote blue no matter who (as you advocate voting for, as far as I’m aware, unrepentant enforcer for the empire Graham Totenkopf Planter over running a PSL or otherwise communist/leftist candidate) and other people’s views of voting being a means of real change as 2 separate views on electoralism that would be banned under my understanding of the rules.
I’m all for running the furthest left candidate with the chance to win. It’s just not a good strategy when that causes the furthest right candidate to actually win. In safe blue districts, absolutely do that. In purple districts, blue is better than red, and an actual leftist is just going to spoil the vote.
You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices. But at the same time you must soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only of its communist vanguard), and of all the working people (not only of their advanced elements).
Modern Americans are even less class-conscious and prepared than the Germans Lenin was referring to. We must soberly recognize that fact, and suit our strategies to this particularly stunted working class.
As far as I can tell, that currently means promoting leftists in the tiny enclaves where they stand a chance, nudging the Dems left in the primaries where they don’t, and voting for the lesser evil when that’s the best the consciousness of the proletariat allows.
Mamdani was the most leftist candidate we could get in a deep blue district. In less blue districts, we will certainly have to settle for Platners. It’s not a question of whether Platner is good enough, the question is whether Platner is better than Collins right now. While we lack the ability to elect good candidates, elections do little more than allow us to block the worst candidate.
When there are real options besides blue and red, blue no matter who will have outlived its usefulness. We aren’t there yet.
You’re still hung up on winning, but winning bourgeois elections is not the goal, or even on the same playing field as the goal, for communist electoral work. Again the goal is agitation: using the election to expose bourgeois democracy, spread an independent communist programme, and pull people left from their actual lived conditions.
This new quote still does not vindicate lesser-evilism the way you seem to think it does; Lenin is saying communists must soberly assess where the masses are and tailor their platform accordingly, keeping it intelligible, concrete, and tied to people’s direct experiences of rent, wages, war, policing etc. He is again absolutely not saying communists should be advocating voting for the less awful administrator of empire. Meeting people where they are means starting from their present consciousness in order to raise it, not endorsing the blue fascist because the red fascist is worse.
That’s not accurate. It’s not about “winning”, it’s about mitigating losses so that the real methods of change can be more successful.
This new quote still does not vindicate lesser-evilism the way you seem to think it does;
And again, that quote was directed towards Germans, who already had popular leftist parties. The principle is thus:
Lenin is saying communists must soberly assess where the masses are and tailor their platform accordingly
In Germany at the beginning of the 20th century, that tailored platform was one thing. In modern America, it is a very different thing. Meeting the working class where they are means meeting them to the right of progressive liberalism. When that fact changes, so will the appropriate platform.
Meeting people where they are means starting from their present consciousness in order to raise it, not endorsing the blue fascist because the red fascist is worse.
It’s not a matter of “endorsement”, it’s strategic mitigation. Where the masses are, in terms of class consciousness, is center-right at best. Raising that consciousness is going to necessarily pass through liberalism, progressivism, democratic socialism, etc. It’s very difficult to drastically shift the perspective of hundreds of millions of people. That will take time, decades if not generations. Blue “fascists” are slower than red fascists, which means less damage in that period of consciousness-raising. Again, baby tigers vs adult tigers.
It’s not about endorsement, it’s about choosing the easier enemy to defeat.
Honestly again I’m not interested in debating the point at large even if I disagree completely you should feel free to continue to believe what you do I just think you should use quotes that back up what you’re saying as opposed to ones that are entirely about communist parties running their own candidates as a means of agitation and absolutely 100% not about voting for the kautskyites or reactionaries that might be nicer managers.
I think you misunderstand my point in quoting Lenin. I support my decision based on my own reasoning. Yes, I extend Lenin’s argument to encompass actions that suit the class-consciousness of the American masses, but the larger point of quoting Lenin is just to show that disparaging anti-electoralism has significant precedent on the left. Banning it is bad policy.
And again Leninist style electoralism and what you’re advocating are 2 entirely different things even if both are technically electoralism and as far as I’m aware only what you’re advocating for and advocating for electoralism as a means to make meaningful change is what people take issue with.
I disagree especially when taken into account with how much time he spent writing polemics about how terrible and idiotic all the Kautskyites, social chauvinists, etc were.
I would agree if the rules were against the Leninist view of electoralism as a platform for agitation etc but I believe the rules are more targeted towards your view of vote blue no matter who and the view of electoralism as a means to bring meaningful change. It is however an anarchist community that I’m not 100% acquainted with so I could be wrong but that’s the vibe I get from it and other communities with similar rules.
I never said electoralism was a means to bring meaningful change. My argument is that it’s one tool that can be used to slightly influence the landscape to mitigate the worst of the damage. Obviously real change comes from dual power and organization, voting blue just gives us a slightly easier battle, and slightly slows the descent into fascism.
I never said you did and If I did it was an accident I meant to say your views of vote blue no matter who (as you advocate voting for, as far as I’m aware, unrepentant enforcer for the empire Graham Totenkopf Planter over running a PSL or otherwise communist/leftist candidate) and other people’s views of voting being a means of real change as 2 separate views on electoralism that would be banned under my understanding of the rules.
I’m all for running the furthest left candidate with the chance to win. It’s just not a good strategy when that causes the furthest right candidate to actually win. In safe blue districts, absolutely do that. In purple districts, blue is better than red, and an actual leftist is just going to spoil the vote.
Modern Americans are even less class-conscious and prepared than the Germans Lenin was referring to. We must soberly recognize that fact, and suit our strategies to this particularly stunted working class.
As far as I can tell, that currently means promoting leftists in the tiny enclaves where they stand a chance, nudging the Dems left in the primaries where they don’t, and voting for the lesser evil when that’s the best the consciousness of the proletariat allows.
Mamdani was the most leftist candidate we could get in a deep blue district. In less blue districts, we will certainly have to settle for Platners. It’s not a question of whether Platner is good enough, the question is whether Platner is better than Collins right now. While we lack the ability to elect good candidates, elections do little more than allow us to block the worst candidate.
When there are real options besides blue and red, blue no matter who will have outlived its usefulness. We aren’t there yet.
You’re still hung up on winning, but winning bourgeois elections is not the goal, or even on the same playing field as the goal, for communist electoral work. Again the goal is agitation: using the election to expose bourgeois democracy, spread an independent communist programme, and pull people left from their actual lived conditions.
This new quote still does not vindicate lesser-evilism the way you seem to think it does; Lenin is saying communists must soberly assess where the masses are and tailor their platform accordingly, keeping it intelligible, concrete, and tied to people’s direct experiences of rent, wages, war, policing etc. He is again absolutely not saying communists should be advocating voting for the less awful administrator of empire. Meeting people where they are means starting from their present consciousness in order to raise it, not endorsing the blue fascist because the red fascist is worse.
That’s not accurate. It’s not about “winning”, it’s about mitigating losses so that the real methods of change can be more successful.
And again, that quote was directed towards Germans, who already had popular leftist parties. The principle is thus:
In Germany at the beginning of the 20th century, that tailored platform was one thing. In modern America, it is a very different thing. Meeting the working class where they are means meeting them to the right of progressive liberalism. When that fact changes, so will the appropriate platform.
It’s not a matter of “endorsement”, it’s strategic mitigation. Where the masses are, in terms of class consciousness, is center-right at best. Raising that consciousness is going to necessarily pass through liberalism, progressivism, democratic socialism, etc. It’s very difficult to drastically shift the perspective of hundreds of millions of people. That will take time, decades if not generations. Blue “fascists” are slower than red fascists, which means less damage in that period of consciousness-raising. Again, baby tigers vs adult tigers.
It’s not about endorsement, it’s about choosing the easier enemy to defeat.
Honestly again I’m not interested in debating the point at large even if I disagree completely you should feel free to continue to believe what you do I just think you should use quotes that back up what you’re saying as opposed to ones that are entirely about communist parties running their own candidates as a means of agitation and absolutely 100% not about voting for the kautskyites or reactionaries that might be nicer managers.
I think you misunderstand my point in quoting Lenin. I support my decision based on my own reasoning. Yes, I extend Lenin’s argument to encompass actions that suit the class-consciousness of the American masses, but the larger point of quoting Lenin is just to show that disparaging anti-electoralism has significant precedent on the left. Banning it is bad policy.
And again Leninist style electoralism and what you’re advocating are 2 entirely different things even if both are technically electoralism and as far as I’m aware only what you’re advocating for and advocating for electoralism as a means to make meaningful change is what people take issue with.