Over the last few months, volunteers around the country have been actively petitioning, talking with and collecting signatures from tens of thousands of people ready to see a socialist on the ballot in their state.

As of today, our campaign:

💥 Is officially on the ballot in 9 states
💥 Has submitted the required signatures in 7 states
💥 Is still pursuing ballot access in an additional 7 states
💥 Is pursuing official write-in status in 22 states

Our campaign has a path to over 270 electoral college votes — a majority.

The two-party system makes it incredibly difficult for third party candidates without huge financial resources to access ballots in some states. No matter what status your state is, we encourage supporters to get involved and help build the movement for a future by and for the people beyond the ballot box!

Whether you can donate your money your time, or both — we need your help! Visit 🔗http://votesocialist2024.com/volunteer to learn how you can get involved!

Good for them PSL

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jack@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's not in any way a "pointless vanity ticket". It's a specific strategic choice the party explains here: https://www.liberationschool.org/why-we-are-running-in-the-2024-presidential-race/

Working and poor people need their own class-conscious organizations where their needs are subordinate to no one. Elections allow working class parties to directly contrast their program to the capitalist parties in their entirety, demonstrating that socialism is superior to capitalism at proposing solutions that meet the scale of the problems facing the majority of people.

The general sense that a socialist program is “implausible” in the present system gives elections the further ability to expose the thing standing between the substandard status quo and a fulfilling future: the capitalist state, or, said differently, the current political system.

Elections, along with strikes, rebellions, and protests, are a rallying point, where the broad mass of those disillusioned with capitalism can gather and turn their scattered protest into a large-scale positive force for change. Furthermore, they are a unique arena to educate and organize greater numbers to work towards building a new system. Winning power is a long, complex process, but it will never happen unless we openly contend for it and explain what an alternative world could look like.

It's fundamentally about utilizing the massive attention driven towards the presidential circus to promote a socialist platform in contrast to the bourgeois parties, extends the reach of the organization, and builds the revolutionary party.

Our campaign is explicitly pitched for power. What does this mean? First, it means that focusing a campaign on proving the capitalist ideology of the major parties (and some minor ones) is totally bankrupt. Instead, we must go further to show how socialism is the best solution for the problems of the working class. It becomes clear that real power for workers can’t be achieved within the current system, something made apparent by the very “implausibility” of our sound solutions. Finally, in this campaign, we are raising the key issue of how to make deep social change: the need for a Party.

Running a presidential campaign gives access to places and people who might otherwise be unreachable. It is not about winning the presidency or promoting our candidates. It's about leveraging every opportunity to demonstrate the necessity of a Marxist-Leninist communist party and making that organization bigger and more formidable.

[–] impartial_fanboy@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It's fundamentally about utilizing the massive attention driven towards the presidential circus to promote a socialist platform

This "massive attention" is fleeting and far more likely to produce a negative impression than a positive one. I understand they think they're being clever. I'm saying its dumb and is counterproductive and makes them look just like every other bourgeois 3rd party and does in no way

demonstrate the necessity of a Marxist-Leninist communist party

Getting even just one measly school board position to fuck with conservatives to demonstrate that they're actually serious about defending the principles they espouse and not just shouting foreign policy positions people find cringe would generate far more public goodwill than a presidential bid that can't get full 50 ballot access (and even where they do get it they can't even get their party name on the ballot) ever could.

[–] jack@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

one measly school board position to fuck with conservatives to demonstrate that they're actually serious about defending the principles they espouse and not just shouting foreign policy positions people find cringe

wen ur a srs anti-imperialist

Maybe take one second to actually read about the rationale and tactics of the campaign. One example. We raise a platform position - nationalize the 100 largest corporations, for example - and libs say "that will never happen even if you win, which you won't because the system is stacked against you". We say, "correct - we need a socialist revolution and the only historically proven way to do it is a Marxist-Leninist party".

If you could demonstrate in what way it's "dumb and counterproductive" then you may have a point.

[–] impartial_fanboy@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

wen ur a srs anti-imperialist

Oh please. A school board member has absolutely no bearing on foreign policy, sacrificing your political capital on performative displays of anti-imperialism will only alienate the people you are trying to get to join and make other potentially sympathetic board members not want to be associated with you or your policies (even if you're just voting in the negative). The people you are trying to reach do not engage with party literature, they hear about PSL from twitter or some local news article which regurgitates whatever the party's take is in the least flattering way possible. Playing into that by using the platform a (very) minor presidential bid gives you is just ... naive at best.

Maybe take one second to actually read about the rationale and tactics of the campaign.

I did. I just disagree.

One example. We raise a platform position - nationalize the 100 largest corporations, for example - and libs say "that will never happen even if you win, which you won't because the system is stacked against you". We say, "correct - we need a socialist revolution and the only historically proven way to do it is a Marxist-Leninist party".

Why would anyone believe that? Genuinely. Not to mention nationalization isn't even a uniquely socialist policy. The only even nominally socialist state of any significance is China and, at the very least, their economy is as capitalist as apple pie. Promises are cheap. Change people's material conditions for the better and then they will believe you, not before. I understand its hard work and doesn't have the glamour of a protest or a presidential bid, but if we actually want things to change for the better then it must be done.

[–] jack@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Change people's material conditions for the better and then they will believe you, not before.

Are you an anarchist? Wield power before you win it is not a real world plan

[–] impartial_fanboy@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

Are you an anarchist?

You actually made me laugh, thanks. This isn't productive anymore though.