impartial_fanboy

You can see most of the ROW in the central valley on google maps. It's the tunnels that are the real issue since they haven't started any of the three main passes yet.

I'm not saying it does nothing. I'm saying it's a waste because I think the party could achieve much more per dollar/hour of organizing by organizing for something more substantial than an outreach campaign and also avoid the stigma of being a 'third party'.

I'm glad it's growing regardless, I have my doubts about their retention but I won't prejudge that. Do you know if there is any long term plan to merge with the Peace and Freedom party or the SLP? Or what the party is planning on doing with the influx of new members?

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 don't think it's a productive means of criticizing psl to not make that argument outright

Fair. But I don't think being dishonest about the purpose of the campaign (and really only by omission since most people would only hear that they are running, not the intent behind it) is inherently a scam. It's just a bad look. I think people look at successes in Europe and think they can just do the same things here and expect similar results. But the political structure here just doesn't allow those kind of serious 'third parties' challenges.

Obviously this isn't like an official PSL board or something but the last time there was a big thread about their campaign (that I noticed) I got huge push back for suggesting they run local candidates instead and not make a point of focusing on foreign policy positions for like school board campaigns and whatnot. Though this thread is more critical of the campaign than that one.

I definitely don't use AdBlock like everyone else under 35.

This is just objectively not true. Also the point would be to target 'normal' people not terminally online people like us. But it's beside the point, I was just saying if you're gonna throw money at something, that would be a better use of funds.

They should make a concerted effort to win local elections. Or focus on one particular state and truly try to flip it. But I get either of those paths are harder than doing a press tour.

The two parties have established rules so stringent they're almost impossible to abide by and become an official party on the ballot.

So why choose the structurally most difficult path?

If you are that tuned into the PSL campaign, you've seen the instructions on how to show your support via the election process.

They will never win an election if that is the level of effort needed to get votes.

I'm not sure if it matters that their name didn't match on the ballot.

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.

although i don't think campaigning is an inherently dishonest means of agitprop

Campaigning with the express intent to not win is dishonest. It is literally the exact opposite of the purpose of a campaign.

i would like to again reiterate that the bolsheviks ran for and attained office to further their revolutionary goals

I would join tomorrow if they actually focused on local elections. And I don't mean congressional elections, at least at first, they have to start small. And not just California, or at least not in LA or SF.

i just don't think the bolsheviks were not being honest by running for seats in the Duma while planning its destruction.

I agree, but they were explicit in their intentions and they could actually reach people. We also don't have a parliamentary system, the dynamics are just not the same.

we must make our arguments with data and without prejudice

I also agree. Let's just say if their membership was something to brag about, they would.

If the purpose of the campaign is essentially just an advertisement then they could literally just spend money on targeted ads. At least that would be honest.

the amerikkkan electorate is certainly much more ideologically fascist than early 20th century russian peasants

The American electorate primarily does not vote. And if it is ideologically anything it is incoherent.

The money they waste on the campaign would be much better spent setting up chapters in rural areas so there is a real option to the hegemonic chudness. It's also way easier to win elections when the electorate size in any race is in the hundreds not hundreds of thousands.

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.

Certainly of Soviet style planned economies. Though just the existence of computers refutes a lot of his so called problems.

Theoretically literate right wingers don't go around proselytizing because that would go against their theory of power. You don't teach the peasants, you use them. I would argue that policy wise the popular 'theorists' are only now making in roads because no one reads anything anymore, left or right.

Well there's more to the right than just fascism. Catholic integralism is a hot topic right now. For a real head scratcher try George Fitzhugh. He was a pro slavery anti-capitalist who liked socialism because he thought it was the ultimate form of slavery.

Oh yeah don't get me started on the left's residual Christian thinking. The amount of barely veiled protestant thinking is too damn high. The obsession with splitting is a perfect example.