impartial_fanboy

Okay fair I missed that part. Still doesn't change the physics though.

No I consider it a vanity ticket because they have no intention of really winning. You can't use the same strategy as every other 3rd party and expect people to not just assume that your party is exactly the same as every other grifter.

Pivoting to actually trying to win state ballots is a step backwards

Then you gotta do institution building which, as far as I'm aware, PSL does not do.

The goal of participating in bourgeois elections is to draw attention, nothing more.

I fully agree. And the best way to do that is to win seats so you can throw a wrench (or three) into the system and block any policies that would harm the working class. Then propagandize on those tangible achievements so that you can demonstrate to people that you can actually offer them something beyond just having the 'correct' opinions. All the while trying to build parallel institutions which can eventually take over the functions of the state you are trying to dismantle so people aren't afraid society will collapse if you take power, electorally or otherwise.

Except they haven't actually demonstrated anything, there were a bunch of startups and others in the west who have done this same 'demonstration' before concluding (rightly) that it wasn't worth pursuing. Socialism doesn't change physics, it's still a stupid idea. Just because some group in China is now on the grift doesn't change that fact.

Really wish they would start smaller and try to become a real alternative in even one state, not do these pointless vanity presidential tickets. Hard to take them seriously when they waste so much money on these every 4 years.

Books by politicians always have inflated sales, it's a (not so) backdoor way to influence them. This isn't a new thing. I'm not saying no one is buying it, just that it's a sort of meaningless statistic without more context.

Bought by whom? Actual people or Super-PACs?

I'm converting to PMC Maoism.

I love (by which I mean hate) how 'purity test' has just come to refer to having any uncompromising moral position whatsoever.

Again it's one of those cliche situations of the left wants to not kill Palestinians and the right wants to kill all of them and liberals are like, "but you gotta compromise to get what you want ..."

Though hearing the Biden superpacs are focusing almost entirely on digital stuff makes me hope that most of these are just shills, even the downvoting is inconsistent, like the horde missed some comments or misinterpreted some of the commenters to think they're pro-lib when they're not. Very strange either way.

Oh it's absolutely pathetic. They should have cut ties with her when she backpedaled her first marginally pro-palestine interview shortly after she got elected (if I'm remembering correctly, could've been before). But the DSA isn't a serious organization so we get this too little too late severing.

File those performative articles of impeachment against Clarence Thomas.

And, "it's what the unions wanted!" about the railroad strike.

But that's the kind of power we lost! How horrible ...

There was one berating the OOP about how, now that they've cut ties with her, the DSA has less power. Like how could they be so stupid as to do that.

Completely missing the point that they never had her 'power' to begin with, I swear people didn't use to be this dumb about politics but here we are ...

Who could've thought that Leigh Phillips would write something like this ... lol. Is he even pretending to be a socialist still?

edit: I don't know how to spell