It is also a very good thing if the people he boosts get crushed by the establishment (either before or after getting elected).

The idea that voting harder will resolve issues needs to be destroyed in the minds of american liberals (and this is partially underway). If there is a better way of propagandizing it than just outright demonstrating it, then I guess I wish someone would inform me about that. Explaining theory doesn’t work at scale.

It is also important to keep in mind that Hasan is a figurehead propagandist for the US American Left. His audience is growing with the mainstream coverage, and these people are varely-deconstructed liberals. He would not have his platform (which is valuable to our movement) if he didnt channel his call to action toward things that are easily digestible. “Vote against Zionist/AIPAC candidates -> get involved with their campaigns -> organize outside of the electoral system (start a union, join DSA/PSL)” is a straightforward way to activate his large audience. Over the course of several years it will generate thousands of left-wing leaders who will be equipped (from their experience and education) for more advanced tactics.

It is a shame that this is the most prominent left figure available, but PSL are not yet up to the task. At the same time, Hasan’s prominence could lead to that (or something that is equivalently effect).

I know like 5ish Hasan fans IRL, and frankly they don’t seem to have a cultist dedication to doing exactly what he says unlike a lot of other streamer fans. I doubt if they really wanted to join a new party, Hasan advising against it would deter them.

he also tells people to join PSL, i don’t think you have a good handle on what his average is. if you’re only seeing his most entryist efforts, you’re going to get the view being offered to people with little to no political consciousness.

He is pretty buff

Somewhere here said lefty support for Platner reeks of desperation and that’s my take too. The left broadly speaking doesn’t have standards because we are so starved for candidates and people with genuine leftist convictions will tie themselves in knots trying to justify why they would vote for the serial liar with terrible political instincts and a sketchy as hell past just because he says the obviously correct thing about healthcare.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some money is being exchange. Always happens with these streamer people.

After watching the UK Labour party go through this for the last 30 years (technically longer but not in my political activity) which is a far less robust and more easily coopted party than the dems I’m inclined towards the position that entryism in the dems is a totally futile endeavour bordering on harmful because if they get a small amount of success you will end up locked into a socdem vs conservative political battle for 30 years that eliminates any possibility of socialism until some stupid ass neoliberals find a way to purge the left as “antisemitic” and inadvertently causes a whole new left movement.

at least you’re consistent lol

can i offer the alternative perspective that there are a lot of 3rd parties and amerikkkan political and class consciousness is so low that none of them have ever been more than modestly and regionally successful?

trotskyist entryism cell takes over one of the parties.

that’s essentially what’s been happening to elect more socialist-sympathetic politicians. if your goal is to get the genocide and wars to stop as a step towards greater consciousness, i personally don’t find it to be some wholehearted betrayal of ideological purity to try and get people elected who have made concrete vows to stop funding the war and genocide.

Isn’t the person running against Platner also a massive piece of shit?

Kinda seems Maine is kinda fucked either way.

Or just pulls a sinema

or pulls a fetterman

Heaven forbid!

It probably doesn’t help that if you know about PSL then you are more acutely aware of how the electoral system works and how much of an impossibly long-shot it is to create a third party in the United States.

sorry should have clarified, i do know about psl i meant people on this site advocating for a third party

You can have a labor movement without a union. In the U.S., any meaningful labor movement will be non-unionized. In the U.S. unions are used to hold onto the scraps you have, not to bargain for more.

I am reminded of Bukharin’s take on industrial democracy and Comrade Lenin’s repudiation of it. From “Disagreements on Principle” section of “Once Again on The Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Buhkarin”.

"Take this famous “industrial democracy”, which Comrade Bukharin hastened to insert in the Central Committee’s resolution of December 7. It would, of course, be ridiculous to quibble about this ill-conceived brainchild (“tricky flourishes”), if it merely occurred in an article or speech. But, after all, it was Trotsky and Bukharin who put themselves into the ridiculous position by insisting in their theses on this very term, which is the one feature that distinguishes their “platforms” from Rudzutak’s theses adopted by the trade unions.

The term is theoretically wrong. In the final analysis, every kind of democracy, as political superstructure in general (which must exist until classes have been abolished and a classless society established), serves production and is ultimately determined by the relations of production in a given society. It is, therefore, meaningless to single out “industrial democracy”, for this leads to confusion, and the result is a dummy. That is the first point.

The second is that if you look at Bukharin’s own explanation given in the resolution of the C.C. Plenary Meeting on December 7, which he drafted, you will find that he says: “Accordingly, the methods of workers’ democracy must be those of industrial democracy, which means. . . .” Note the “which means”! The fact is that Bukharin opens his appeal to the masses with such an outlandish term that he must give a gloss on it. This, I think, is undemocratic from the democratic standpoint. You must write for the masses without using terms that require a glossary. This is bad from the “production” standpoint because time is wasted in explaining unnecessary terms. “Which means,” he says, “that nomination and seconding of candidates, elections, etc., must proceed with an eye not only to their political staunchness, but also business efficiency, administrative experience, leadership, and proved concern for the working people’s material and spiritual interests.”

The reasoning there is obviously artificial and incorrect. For one thing, democracy is more than “nomination and seconding of candidates, elections, etc.” Then, again, not all elections should be held with an eye to political staunchness and business efficiency. Comrade Trotsky notwithstanding, an organisation of many millions must have a certain percentage of canvassers and bureaucrats (we shall not be able to make do without good bureaucrats for many years to come). But we do not speak of “canvassing” or “bureaucratic” democracy.

The third point is that it is wrong to consider only the elected, the organisers, the administrators, etc. After all, they constitute a minority of outstanding men. It is the mass, the rank and file that we must consider. Rudzutak has it in simpler, more intelligible and theoretically more correct terms (thesis 6):

“. . . it must be brought home to each participant in production that his production tasks are appropriate and important; that each must not only take a hand in fulfilling his assignments, but also play an intelligent part in correcting any technical and organisational defects in the sphere of production.

The fourth point is that “industrial democracy” is a term that lends itself to misinterpretation. It may be read as a repudiation of dictatorship and individual authority. It may be read as a suspension of ordinary democracy or a pretext for evading it. Both readings are harmful, and cannot be avoided without long special commentaries."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm

While certainly social conditions have changed, I fail to see see how unions in their present form, even the IWW (I’m a wobbly) can effectively reach or even be functionally apart of the same system as a proletarian vanguard other than being ultimately subsumed into a committee or labor board under a worker’s party guiding economic direction. Most unions, while beneficial to most workers, retain reactionary ideals and sabotage their own interests because of their lack of theoretical doctrine or understanding of class politics. AFL is a good example of this.

“…and cannot be avoided without long special commentaries” is of particular humor to me, he knew how brutal this topic is with other leftists.