I'd actually kind of interested in what you mean by that, since I can't think of anything that might fit that off the top of my head that could also potentially provide a tangible benefit to anybody.
Believe it or not, there are social issues which the Democrats are not capable of solving!
Distribution cooperatives, which replace capitalist markets in the production and distribution of commodities, in particular to the poor, but to everyone in general who participates; organizations which pressure distributors to lower prices, which includes governments for rent and utility prices; self-defense corps for oppressed minorities, in the manner of the Black Panthers; community services rather in the manner which RT provides (housing reconstruction and community renewal); more radical parts of minority, women's, LGBT, and indigenous issues which do not fit into the liberal market-oriented, capital-friendly programme (things like migrant rights and indigenous claims to land, as well as addressing the malfeasant nature of the treatment of both groups and their living accommodations).
In essence, all issues which liberals are not politically capable of tackling, because of whose interests they primarily serve (the middle and upper classes). Raising the minimum wage is just easy, it's something a lot of people want and which doesn't hurt capital in the long run at all, so why
not give it to them? Not that they didn't try to water it down to a pathetic $10.10 anyway...
I would think that finding common cause with liberals might attract more people to communism or socialism. Shouldn't that be important for those respective parties? Agitating for things that the broader public doesn't necessarily care about instead of popular issues seems to be missed opportunities to grow your movement to me Cheezy. (not that I would know, mind you. and I could be misunderstanding you entirely)
If your choice is between a liberal party and a communist party, and they're offering the exact same thing, then why pick the communist party?
We don't really
want people who are comfortable with the Democrats, we want people disaffected by them. You don't prove you're different by fighting the exact same battles as them, which in the end
they will take credit for, not us.
Can't make many defenses of SA since I'm mostly ignorant on their history (I know they supported Nader & OWS), but Sawant herself seems pretty unwilling to compromise to the Dems. IIRC, the $15 min wage was her main platform, a faster and higher min wage increase than Dems were promising. All the Seattle papers I'm reading say things to the effect that she "hijacked" the city's political priorities. She's also the one scaring the bejesus out of dems by
rallying Boeing workers to seize their own workplaces from management.
That Boeing trick did impress me, I didn't expect that out of an elected socialist. Still, her class analysis could be better. And when she talks, she just sounds very...liberal to me, and that gives me an icky feeling.
At the end of the day though, she's just one councilwoman, likely to be voted out in the next election thanks to redistricting. She needs to gain some exposure for her ideals and her organization so she can take this show on the road, and I have tentative faith she won't "sell out" before then.
Which is why I don't overtly oppose her, either. I understand the importance of a bully pulpit. But I don't want people getting the idea that "see, elections can work, we just need to work harder at it" is any sort of communist solution.
In general I think taking liberal platforms, cranking them up a notch, and claiming them for socialists can be a winning strategy. Poor across the world are afraid of chaos, whether it's coming from a professed revolutionary party in their interests or not. Lula learned this in Brazil, though I'm not advocating leftist parties all turn into the Brazilian PT (for various reasons).
I don't see a problem though in offering a platform that immediately affects people's material condition. Latching onto the back of an issue like minimum wage that is a popular issue without compromising the longer term goals of a socialist organization is totally possible, right?
Just because you don't come out in support of something doesn't mean you're against it. If workers win higher wages, that's good for them. But I won't be wasting my time and effort with the issue when the Democrats are perfectly capable of winning the fight without me.
What our communist parties need is a
mass line, and part of building and maintaining such a line is digesting issues that the people care about in Marxist framing, and then addressing those issues politically. That can involve a bit of electoral participation on a tactical level, yes; but critical to the mass line, like the popular front, is that we don't tail the proletariat or liberal parties, and we don't get involved in issues or coalitions that we are incapable of leading and controlling. It might sound crass, but if you aren't the lead dog, then the view is always the same. We can't direct the masses toward revolution if we don't have control over where the political manifestation of the masses demands is going, and if we don't have that control, then we get led along with them to wherever whomever is leading them wants to take us. If it's liberal parties, that means we go toward capitalist accommodationism, which you can find a lot of right on this forum from any of our outspoken anti-communist liberals. And if it's other parties, then it can be even worse.
That's why I scowl at these communists who think they're advancing their cause by associating with liberal parties on these issues. They're committing political suicide.
It's for them damn worthless teens and the middle aged druggies!
