Why Electoral Politics fails for the left

*Note on THIRD SPACES. I've since learnt of a better alternative to third spaces, Right to the City.

Today we go over a more specific reason why electoralism holds elements which make it inherently much harder for the left compared with the right.
Also Project 2025, Restaurants, and a eulogy to my favorite bookshop.
Hydra Bookshop is still on socials, it just hasn't found a permanent home yet. The memories can be found here so you can see how cool it was:

1. Incase I wasn’t clear, it's probable that most of Galloway’s and other’s views are 100% what they believe. Opportunism =/= Grifting.

Oddly Lenin probably gives the best definition of an opportunist:
“The opportunist does not betray his party, he does not act as a traitor, he does not desert it. He continues to serve it sincerely and zealously. But his typical and characteristic trait is that he yields to the mood of the moment, he is unable to resist what is fashionable, he is politically short-sighted and spineless. Opportunism means sacrificing the permanent and essential interests of the party to the momentary, transient and minor interests.”

2. Eddie Liger, Harpal Brar, Caleb Maupin, Peter Coffin, Haz, and Jackson Hinkle.

3. That symbol is supposed to represent Market-Socialism, it was literally the only one I could find.

00:00 - Intro
00:30 - Why Electoralism is harder
08:12 - Stepping Stone Strategy
11:50 - Project 2025
16:50 - Why restaurants won't exist under Socialism
19:50 - Stray Thoughts
23:50 - An alternative to electoral politics! (Third Spaces)

[BadMouse]

If you didn't know, this is a follow up video to one I made last week.
Going through the arguments socialists have towards Electoralism.

[cameronhammer]

Big ups to the radical third spaces. The first places I look to go to in a new town are the radical/alt bookshops- lovely spots

[nathandrake]

Contrapoints was never radical. In one of her earliest videos she described herself as a "pessimistic socialist"

[vmast_vids]

“Socialism doesn’t proliferate capital being incentivized, so a conditional profit based production of food won’t have to exi—“
“MUH KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN!?”

[JohnSavant]

No, what Marxists (Lenin especially) actually say is - use electoralism to organize, discuss, and teach workers what collective action means and to voice opinion of the working class. Electoralism as a means to an end, and that is substantially different to what liberal leftism means today - vote and do nothing but vote.

[ІлляВетров-йд]

I was anticipating this guy's return much, much more than current Russian elections.

[Rtroguy]

Speaking of Radical Third Places, it would be cool for you to do another video on such Radical Third Places around the world, their history and their struggles (places like Blitzhuset, Ungdomshuset, Provo and squats in Berlin, the Netherlands and BRISTOL!)

[Leftistattheparty]

Yet again, another great video that points out the problems with electoralism without being snarky, rude, and dismissive of the simple act of voting itself.
And the cherry on top is providing an alternative that is possible for the vast majority of people to do.

[MarxistStaffy]

It's nice to see you back, comrade. Hope you're doing well and also having a good day.

[Rtroguy]

When you mention creating spaces/groups that are not just "We must go to the masses, we must lead the people!" I'm reminded of one of my flatmates from uni. He is a dyed-in-the-wool Trotskyist and very heavily involved with the Socialist Party Scotland, a "local branch" of the Committee for a Workers' International, who is incredibly well-read, intelligent and passionate. As you point out wrt those who "proclaim", he and the party he is with is claiming to be "doing something". However, it broke my heart that he had given himself so fully to a group that did little more than put up tables next to protests, sell newspapers, hold restricted pub talks and collect signatures. I don't remember them doing any organising, direct action, or anything more substantive.

This was not a matter of lazy or poor organising, but it went to the very core of what the group is: he explained to me at a party once that the Committee for a Workers' International does not see itself as the movement, but rather as the ones "laying the groundwork" to chair the "mass workers' movement" when it eventually comes. A committee *for* a workers' international, ready to lead and just waiting for *when* it comes. As you point out so beautifully in your video, a lack of imagination, ability to dream, ambition to build is the death knell for any proper socialist, and that goes for electoralism (regardless of success) as well as the groups who proclaim to be "doing something".

[roryreviewer]

15:33 I’d like to address this point a bit cause I think it’s a little misconstrued. Of course in private left spaces, like reading groups and what not, we should discuss the failures of the USSR, Stalin and Mao and all those people. But if you’re putting your voice out on a public platform, I think a leftist has a certain amount of responsibility (especially when talking about existing socialist countries like Cuba) to understand the context in which you speak. That as someone in the imperial core, any criticism of places like Cuba necessarily lend themselves to support of imperialism. We should be aware of that I think.

Also, in the context of public speech and not of private discussion, my job isn’t to make places Cuba or even North Korea better. I don’t live there and I have no power to meaningfully change it. That’s up to the workers in those countries. My job is to make sure my own government doesn’t try to fuck them up anymore than they already have.

[Ultravis]

I am so glad you are back! I used to watch your videos all the time and then suddenly you dropped off!

Please keep posting, I really enjoy hearing your thoughts and views!

[Naturewalkingthrough]

Something to add is that going through the establishment ignores the fact that those who are inside have no agency to control the political system.
Whenever a left wing gets elected, they are not pulling the establishment left, the establishment was going to pull them right.
A good video on this is the ratchet effect by fellow traveler.

[beatoriche]

What a nice and thoughtful video! And I completely agree. It's honestly a little dispiriting to see people, even on the radical left, with so little in the way of an active imagination (see also the reluctance a bunch of people online have when it comes to prison abolition, though I haven't seen as much of that IRL), and I do believe that communitarian spaces can be an amazing first step in places (like most of the First World) where the left is in shambles because they allow us to learn to _think_ like socialists. We are playing the long game, and it is upon us to be compassionate and patient with one another as we seek to make the world a better place. Although there are absolutely things that I think are worth shouting from the rooftops even if it brings us discomfort or takes a lot out of us – and _Free Palestine_ is certainly among them!

[DBSG]

I always appreciate that you can talk about conservatives without insults and you nailed the reason why it appears consolidated, but I assure you American Conservatism is very divided group.

[slipknotboy]

This video was (generally) very good, and I agreed with the vast majority of what you said.

Before I get into other things - ~6:44: Yeah, PatSocs are a plague. Actual MLs don't like them. They (PatSocs) are not MLs. They're blatantly revisionist and blatantly reactionary. Some may call them "class reductionists, " but they don't care about the class part, either. They're also heavily associated with LaRouchite groups, and Maupin at the least has hinted at his admiration for LaRouche for years. These are obviously huge (not the good kind of) red flags. Seems like they're a way of sabotaging the movement.

Onto the next bit. Everything was generally good until

~14:45

Tf was that!? Seriously?

I was going to ask if 2:52 was supposed to be a jab at Lenin, but now I'm fairly sure it is.

So you still haven't gotten over your anti-ML phase?? What a shame. Seemed like maybe you had some time back.

That doesn't even make sense. Comparing Biden to Stalin of all people? What??

What was the "material conditions" part of that!? It's a reference to an argument many of us know, but it doesn't apply to the USSR during Stalin's leadership. Socialism was in fact achieved in the '30s. Collective ownership of the means of production, private property virtually abolished, markets largely abolished (iirc, there was pretty much only a [regulated] market for exchange between industry and agriculture), etc. Wtf.

It would've made way more sense to reference the stans of the modern CPC there! ""MLs"" and others who ignore or brush off the blatant revisionism, and insist that China's on a socialist road despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

But nah, you had to bash Stalin.
"I'm so radical!" But in the next breath, "Stalin bad hurrr! Amirite everyone? Anticommunist propaganda tells us he was bad so he bad." And in a way that doesn't even make sense. When there are far better examples you could've used.

It's even more funny - and ironic - because Stalin (and Lenin) *actually did the thing!*

Successful proletarian revolution. Bourgeois/ rightist state smashed. New Soviet state protected and maintained despite huge challenges. Socialism built, despite what they had to work with (The Russian Empire having been an extremely backwards, mostly agrarian, semi-feudal state). One of the most impressive industrializations in human history. Despite the starting point at the time of revolution (way, way behind the West), becomes the first country to reach space. In that time, illiteracy is also eradicated, all the important indicators, as well as conditions and quality of life, etc., go up drastically. Millions of people pulled out of poverty, getting educated, and living in a socialist society. Etc. etc.

And this state defeated the fascist powers, as well. And in spite of all the damage done to their country in the process, they pressed on, and continued to do impressive things (unfortunately, revisionists came to power after Stalin's death, but still).

Stalin (and his supporters) also personally pushed for the building of socialism, and had to fight the rightists and other oppositionists in the Party to do so.

He actually did the thing.

But here you are sh*tting on him (don't want my comment buried) like your average liberal.

Come on, man.

You should really move beyond this anti-ML thing in general. I thought you had years ago.

Some "MLs" aren't great (to say the least), which is why I have to call myself an anti-revisionist ML. But sh*tting on ML itself - which those people have often completely deviated/ moved away from - and all MLs is just silly.

Especially since, ya know - the vast, vast majority of successful revolutions have been led by MLs, or people following ML ideology/ strategy.

[Edit: Sorry for long comment, but it was likely necessary. At least, if you actually read and consider it.]

[Edit 2: Also, apologies if I misinterpreted anything (though I don't think I did - I think my interpretation fits what you said/ your framing). I believe the general point(s) is (/are) valid either way, though.

And tbc, I was speaking in simplified terms. Lenin and Stalin were the leaders/ figureheads, but as they themselves would say (and they both did, multiple times), the masses are the ones who make history. And the Soviet people carried out the building of all that.

(Though they were following Lenin and Stalin's correct lines, ofc.)]

[BTin]

Participating in bourgeois elections and expecting Marxism-Leninism to win is an attempt in futility. However, there is benefit in participation, I think the benefit is reducing your pain under capitalism as best you can (SocialDems suck, but are better than Conservatives or Liberals). If you have a genuine communist on the ballot, then turn out and support them. So for me, its not about 'winning' in a bourgeois election, its merely about harm reduction.

[lec_R]

15:45 I'm confused what are you talking about? What kind of MLs push that
Specific examples please?

[JW-bxss]

Your chaticature of marxist Leninists is completely simplistic. I'm an ML and I completely agree with everything you've said in this video. No serious ML acts the way you describe or at least not the vast majority who actually organise in person.

[willpls]

So great every time you come out of hiding to release a banger like this.