Re: DSA's Platform Reboot

Marv,
I want to be clear that there is no disdain here, and there is no other group involved. That was my main point, though I said it too briefly before.
You already described the distinction I was making, using Marx's terms. You then asked which other class I meant. A class that exists but is not yet aware of itself is not a separate group; it is the same people, just organized differently. The group I am talking about is simply the workers who vote. There is no hidden group waiting elsewhere. Thinking otherwise is confusing strategy with wishful thinking.
Here is the difference. The electorate is the class as it appears when votes are counted. People are approached one household at a time, added up as numbers, and then the group disappears after the election. Their role is to approve or reject choices every few years, choices that others have already set. This is real and measurable, which is why we never supported abstaining. But in structure, it matches what Marx described at the end of the Brumaire. People may share the same work situation, but that alone does not create a bond, a group that can discuss or act together. They are represented by others, not by themselves. The act of voting is all the electorate can do, because it cannot give instructions—only agree or disagree.
A base is made up of the same class but organized into groups that last beyond elections, like union locals, workplace groups, tenants' associations, strike committees, or chapters with membership lists and meeting notes. What sets them apart isn't how big or active they are, but what they can do. These groups can meet, discuss, make decisions, give instructions to a delegate, and stop supporting someone who does not listen. Marx's comment about smallholders was not meant as an insult to peasants. He was pointing out what happens when a class is spread out. The same idea applies to hundreds of thousands of voters who have never gathered together.
You asked for specifics. The real test is what remains after the election. If a campaign ends with just a list of voters, it has created an asset. If it ends with a group—people who met during the campaign, keep meeting, have their own list, and stay connected to the person they elected—it has built an organization. The outreach and conversations may be the same, but what is left behind is different. The way an officeholder is held accountable depends on this. If only the district can hold her responsible, she answers to a general vote and will act accordingly. If there is a group that can recall her, limit her pay, share her voting record, and give her instructions, she is accountable to an organized class. That is what I meant about what a campaign leaves behind. This is also why your discussion with Mark missed the point. The real issue is not participation versus abstention, and it has not been since Engels.
Your example is the best one in this discussion. The SWP was able to run candidates without turning into just an election-focused group because the organized group led, and the campaign followed. That is the difference I am highlighting. It was never about being pure or looking down on voters. It was about which group had real authority—the one that was there before the campaign and remained after it ended.
Tony


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#42790): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42790
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120540495/6024700
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/10173629/6024700/1441833971/xyzzy [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-