this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
74 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
530 readers
302 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The flaw is thinking it was ever about winning an election, and not about using the election as a vehicle for propaganda. If the money converts into expanded party membership and the building of their mass movement, then it's well spent.
But I won't speak for them, from there 2020 announcement:
From their 2024 announcement:
But they don't even get the party name on most of the ballots, they run under different parties. Like California, where nearly half their votes came from they run on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket.
How does that promote PSL? Even just the bare minimum of name recognition, it seems like money poorly spent. Not to mention the reputation of being a 'third party' is ... not great and will cause most people to just dismiss them outright.
You want the membership to reflect the working class not political wonks who pay too much attention to electoral politics.
This is true in many states and even something they acknowledged in their 2024 announcement:
It is a major contradiction within American electoralism. The two parties have established rules so stringent they're almost impossible to abide by and become an official party on the ballot.
Part of their campaign focused on how the parties waged litigation against their campaign to keep them off the ballot in a number of states.
3rd party participation I think went up across most of the 3rd party options in this recent election. In many ways the campaign appeared to be an effort to increase support for all 3rd parties, explicitly greens and independents.
I'm not sure if it matters that their name didn't match on the ballot. I had to write in to cast a vote for them in my state. I don't see that as any different then choosing the affiliated party in CA. If you are that tuned into the PSL campaign, you've seen the instructions on how to show your support via the election process.
As an outsider to the party I think their stated goals around their campaign and the nature of the content of their campaign is consistent. If the campaign is ultimately helping the party would be better answered by party members.
So why choose the structurally most difficult path?
They will never win an election if that is the level of effort needed to get votes.
I literally can't even. Genuinely what is even the point? Are you trying to get people here to not like PSL? This is a total joke.
Look, I'm not trying to be mean but every thread that comes up about PSL's campaign here I just see this same fundamental unseriousness from people who champion them. It's frustrating seeing an obviously well funded ostensibly socialist party waste so much money on this nonsense.
As a non member I can't speak to "what even is the point" but I'll direct you to these comments: https://hexbear.net/comment/5758536 and https://hexbear.net/comment/5758523. If the point is to increase party membership, and if we take these comments at face value, then it seems to be working for the PSLs goals.
So again, I don't believe, based on what they say about their own election campaign, that the goal is to get "votes". Even using the commenters math above the dems had a hire cost per vote then the PSL. Draw your own conclusions there.
But if party activity and membership is as those commenters say, then that is at least one byproduct of their efforts. You're asking questions of me that I can only speculate on. There are plenty of party members here and around here who can give you the parties insights.
What I know is that the conversation during the election surrounding their campaigns, discussions about those issues of how to vote for them, if you can vote for them, if their ballot status was being challenged was definitely fomenting negative sentiment about the electoral process. I even learned some very stupid election rules for my state as a result (write-in lists are not allowed to be published online). If, as a party, you are primed to use that frustration to convert people into members, then I think I understand the goal.
All I can do is speculate. I'm sure PSL members here can better articulate the goals of the party regarding the campaign.
Yeah sorry, my frustration isn't with you. I understand the intent of the campaign. I just fundamentally disagree that it accomplishes those goals, or maybe more specifically, the price they pay for those members is too high. Now obviously their membership isn't public and them growing is a good thing, but I would like to see those numbers in a year or two. Do the people who join because of the campaign stick around? Do they only work on the campaign? Does the campaign cause people to burn out? etc. etc.
They need to demonstrate competence to deserve the label 'vanguard' and using the same strategy as all the other third parties just doesn't cut it for me. But I wish them luck.
I agree with all of this honestly. I think the analysis by this redditer is deeply flawed especially since they seem under the impression the PSL cares about winning the national election instead of their stated goals. I know your frustration wasn't with me, and that's why I'm not really trying to refute your points.