Kshama Sawant wins in Seattle

Seattle City Council candidate Kshama Sawant, a “Socialist Alternative” insurgent, has unseated four-term incumbent Richard Conlin, with the latest batch of mail-in ballots nearly tripling Sawant’s lead to 1,148 votes. A year ago, Sawant was running against the Legislature’s most powerful Democrat, House Speaker Frank Chopp, charging that the “Democratic Party-majority government” had slashed billions from education programs while bestowing tax exemptions on “rich corporations.” Congratulations must go to Kshama Sawant and her campaign. While this doesn’t signal the rise of socialism in the USA it is something we should pay attention to for sure. The Sawant victory comes exactly 97 years after Seattle voters put their first outspoken radical into office, Seattle School Board member Anna Louise Strong. Strong would write about the Wobblies, oppose U.S. entry into World War I and eventually end her days in China, where she was on friendly terms with Mao Zedong. While the Occupy Seattle organizer is about to occupy an office in the council chambers, ballots are still being counted in several close races. One big ballot measure is still hanging, while other contests appear narrowly decided. The $15-an-hour minimum wage proposal in SeaTac, already under legal challenge, leads by exactly 53 votes. The margin was cushioned by 12 votes in Thursday’s count. The proposal for taxpayer-financed elections in Seattle, Proposition 1, has climbed in the late vote count. Unlike Sawant — who overcame a 6,193-vote election night deficit — Prop. 1 hasn’t quite climbed enough. The “No” side still has a lead of 2,656 votes. Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn has come up in the late count. The air went out of the room at McGinn’s election night party when returns showed him with only 43.6 percent of the vote. Sen. Ed Murray is already into transition, but McGinn has since made it respectable. He now has 47.07 percent of the vote. The campaign has captured the attention of the US left nationally, which has been looking for something to stir it from it’s post-Occupy hangover. The unexpected result has led to clamouring for more Sawant-style campaigns—could this be the beginning of a left electoral turn? Yet socialists have frequently run for office and rarely come close to victory. Was the Sawant campaign simply an isolated incident of, as ABC put it, “left-leaning Seattle, where police recently handed out snacks at a large marijuana festival and politicians often try to out-liberal each other?” The fact that fellow Socialist Alternative candidate Ty Moore ran a similarly close campaign in Minneapolis would suggest otherwise. Despite their party affiliation, it would be a mistake to view the Sawant and Moore campaigns as indicative of a groundswell in support for socialism, however defined. Sawant’s success owes itself to concrete policy proposals, such as a highly popular call for a $15/hour minimum wage—a ballot measure that was too-close-to-call in nearby Seatac. Moore, an organizer for Occupy Homes, focused heavily on the issue of foreclosures. Instead, what the results indicate is that increasing numbers are open to left electoral alternatives to entrenched Democratic Party politicians. Sawant gained ground throughout the campaign by relentless attacks on the four-term incumbent Richard Conlin, who Sawant claimed represented “big business interests.” In the post-Citizens United, post-2008 era, the Democratic Party’s corporate fealty is difficult to hide from the working class, who are increasingly financially squeezed. A recent poll indicates that 60% of voters, including half of Democrats, believe that the two major parties “do such a poor job that a third major party is needed.” With support for Congress at an historic low, much of the disgust at the political establishment can also be seen at state and local levels, making incumbents like Conlin unusually vulnerable. Prior to election, only 28% of Seattle’s voters approved of city council. While the Sawant campaign does not necessarily presage a revival of socialism, is does indicate that socialism is not a dirty word—at least in certain parts of the country. 53% of Democratic-leaning voters have a positive view of socialism, compared to 55% for capitalism and 44% for big business. In a heavily Democratic city like Seattle, to embrace the socialist label thus does a progressive candidate little harm. Not only did the label not harm Sawant, but it may have helped, by foregrounding the issue of class and attracting media attention and national fundraising. The two campaigns also demonstrate the importance of organization. Socialist Alternative brought a national organization and full-time staffers to concentrate almost exclusively on three local races (including Seamus Whelan’s unsuccessful candidacy in Boston). The Sawant campaign made use of hundreds of volunteers. Yet despite Socialist Alternative’s organizational strength, their results would not have been achievable in isolation. Critically, Ty Moore landed the endorsement of the SEIU, while Sawant received the endorsement of several unions. Sawant’s insurgent campaign posed tough questions for local progressive Democrats, with several prominent Democrats ultimately endorsing her. Sawant raised over $100,000, significantly out-fundraising Conlin in the campaign’s final weeks. This number should give prospective socialist candidates some pause; at roughly a dollar a vote, Sawant’s campaign was on the efficient side. While it is worth noting the large-scale city-wide nature of the race, this is the type of fundraising that serious third-party challengers will require. Finally, both campaigns benefited from exceptionally strong candidates, with a history of local activism, Sawant with Occupy Seattle and Moore with Occupy Homes-Minnesota. Will owe her slim victory to an impressive ability to communicate with voters on everyday issues. It was also to her advantage that she was familiar to Seattle voters, having run unsuccessfully against Washington House Speaker Frank Chopp in 2012.

Socialists and elections

Over the few years I’ve been involved in politics on the left I have come to notice those who choose to stand in elections on the left more often than not the Marxists that are Trotskyists and so on tend to disguise their true ideas in elections. For example many align themselves with reformist programmes and cozy up to left wing bureaucrats in order to curry favor and support. Many will not reveal their true intentions beyond a few catchy slogans in fact. It is almost like the word socialism cannot be used it would scare off those sympathetic to our cause if we mention the S word the line goes. Personally I find this very disingenuous and downright insulting in many ways to think that workers are too stupid to vote for socialism is a bit patronizing if we're honest. Its not ultra left to talk about socialism or what you really stand for. If you explain how you intend to get there people will trust you far more I’d suggest. People are not stupid and will see through you in the end. It is this vanguardist idea again though that socialism needs to be brought into the workers minds without a revolutionary party they will never gain any higher level of thinking than "trade union" consciousness. For me this is one of the reasons I felt awkward at times during elections in a trotskyist party I felt I was having to speak down to workers all the time when really they wanted to know what we were really for and what is our end goal. When I stood in a election for TUSC this year I stood on a "no cuts platform" as they call it and looked to oppose the cuts but there was no room for socialism in the programme I stood under apparently I was told TUSC have a basic programme which is basic for a reason this reason I could not work out why are we hiding the fact we are socialists and want to change society from people? Yes Socialist is in the name TUSC, Trade Union and Socialist Coalition but it was not prominent much in our literature I felt. For workers they are straight forward people they simply to know what you stand for and how you will help them if they back you. If you feel that electoral politics is your thing and I am no longer sure it is for me but if it is for you then good luck but hiding your true ideas is dishonest in my opinion. Calling yourself a socialist is one thing but it’s not a dirty word to use like it maybe once was. I am not sure real change can come through the ballot box anymore many of the gains we as a class have made have come through mass struggle from below but not through a vote. Even the 1945 Labour government who are as popular on the left still sadly as really they didn’t go that far at all and had other downsides of course were forced to do much of what they did through struggle and pressure from below. The old phrase if we don’t give them reform they will give us revolution has been very key over the years with those at the top in positions of political power having to bend to the demands from below to r remain in power if they did not they would have been removed. One interesting election campaign I’d like to draw people’s attention to is Kshama Sawant Of the CWI in the USA in Seatle which has been seen over the years as a more progressive city but her fantastic campaign has gained a fair bit of momentum and congratulations from this blog must go to her. If she does go on and get elected we will be watching with close scrutiny as we have seen how workers in positions of power change and get sucked in by the system in time if they are not careful. Kshama Sawant's $15 a hour as a minimum wage really caught a mood out there it would seem but yet this in itself is a reformist demand and while these sorts of demands are fine in the short term and will gain popular support in times of austerity and cuts to pay and jobs this should only be seen as a start of a programme which looks to one day abolish wages all together in place of a system which meets people’s needs and produces for everyone’s needs. In Seattle, Sawant’s campaign helped put the “Fight for 15” - strikes and protests of low-wage workers for a $15/hour minimum wage - at the centre of political debate. Socialist Alternative energetically built this movement, aiding victimized striking workers and countering arguments against raising the minimum wage. When labour organisations placed an initiative on the ballot to raise the minimum wage to $15 in the suburb of SeaTac, the Kshama Sawant campaign energetically supported this movement, contributing to the ballot initiative’s historic success. While a new workers party is not even close in the US this campaign highlighted above does show how an idea can catch on. Even though this timid and reformist idea got a echo it cannot be ignored but we must also warn of the dangers of putting faith solely in elections and our elected leaders as a historic president. We must continue to build resistance and direct action on the ground. Organising ourselves independent of a leadership is important. As it is also important to keep all our struggles rooted in the rank-and-file democratic committees while trying to prevent them to be co opted for someone’s gain.

Socialist candidate in the USA making big impact

In the US this autumn many will ask who should we vote for ? there is a clear need now fora new party, a party representing the interests of the 99% and the working class. As Socialist alternative in the USA we are running candidates where we can. Below is a interview with one of our candidates running against a democrat and exposing their role as a second capitalist big business party. Interview with Kshama Sawant in Seattle Socialist Alternative (CWI supporters in the US) Kshama Sawant, a Socialist Alternative candidate in Seattle, is challenging Democratic House Speaker Frank Chopp in the general election for Washington’s 43rd Legislative District. Sawant achieved unprecedented primary election results that had her winning second place in both Positions 1 and 2 of the district. She took some time out from campaigning to talk to Justice newspaper. Kshama Sawant Q: Why are you running as a socialist? I believe that if we’re going to effect change, we have to be bold. That means not hiding behind false labels. More and more people, when asked, will tell you that they prefer socialism over capitalism. And it is obvious why: Capitalism has failed the 99%, whereas socialism stands for genuine democracy and equality. A better world is possible! That better world starts with the working class, the 99%, realizing that we are powerful! I am running as a socialist to show that there are alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats, both of whom represent the interests of the giant corporations. I’m calling for independent candidates of the 99% to run against the corporate politicians in every race! This is just the first step for us in a process of building movements challenging the power of the 1%. Q: What does a socialist candidate offer that a Democratic Party candidate does not? I will be a voice for everyday people in Olympia. Unlike my Democratic opponent, I will put the interests of the 99% first. Look at the money. My campaign is completely funded by ordinary people; meanwhile, my opponent has received tens of thousands of dollars from corporations and the super wealthy. After seeing where his money comes from, it is no surprise that he has consistently voted to slash the budget for social programs like health care and education. I will not only fight to reinstate and expand programs such as Basic Health, but I will also make sure that true single-payer health care is on the agenda in Washington. I will fight to make a quality education available to all, not just to those who have the means to afford it. I will make expanding mass transit and green energy a priority. Unlike the Democrats, I will fight for taxes on corporations and the very wealthy in Washington, who currently benefit from the most regressive tax code in the country. With this revenue, all of these programs can be easily funded. Another difference between myself and the Democrats is that I strive to help build movements. As an Occupy Seattle activist I worked to do just that. History shows the only way real change has been achieved is when people work together to make it happen. The Democratic Party functions to stifle these movements. We’ve seen it time and time again, with the antiwar movement of the early 2000s to the labor union struggle in Wisconsin last year. Q: What do you say to those claiming you can’t change anything through corporate-dominated electoral systems? I don’t think history shows that to be correct. Look at how the Canadians won universal health care. Canadian workers began running independent candidates and eventually built the New Democratic Party. The party grew in popularity, threatening big business and Canada’s main political parties. It became clear that for the ruling class to retain their electoral power, they’d need to give some concessions, in this case universal health care. Ultimately, it’s mass movements that bring about fundamental change. During a presidential election year, many more people are paying attention to politics. Running in elections allows us to reach more people with our ideas and effectively build the movement, particularly when there is such anger with both the Democrats and the Republicans. Examples from history show that it is possible to build working-class parties that do not function as electoral machines like the two major corporate parties. Instead, they are parties that work for the interests of ordinary people, fighting for jobs that pay a living wage, for free, universal health care, for affordable housing, defending pensions and protecting the environment. We need a party of working people, and running candidates that challenge the corporate politicians is the first step toward building that party. Q: What is the most important message you want to give to others thinking of challenging the two main parties? Now is the time! There is increasing support for breaking from the two-party system. This anger at the Democrats, in particular, is evident in the strong showing for our candidate in the primary elections earlier this month. We won over 9% of the vote against a well-liked Democrat, Jamie Pederson, in position 1 and over 11% o f t he vote in position 2 as a write-in candidate against the more vulnerable Speaker of the House, Frank Chopp. These votes show how people are angry at the two corporate parties and are looking for an alternative to challenge the status quo in electoral politics. Winning both races, itself, has increased the media attention and the number of people wanting to get involved with the campaign. The unusual election result gave our campaign the opportunity to switch races and run against the second most powerful Democrat in Washngton State. Running against the House Speaker will provide our campaign with a larger platform from which we can inject our ideas into the stale debate on how to address the economic crisis gripping the state. When I’m out talking to people in the 43rd District I ’m hearing that working people, the unemployed, youth and the elderly are increasingly finding that capitalism isn’t working for them. After hearing me loudly proclaim, “Stop the budget cuts; elect a socialist candidate,” one guy told me, as he backtracked to our table, “Budget cuts are a ***! I NEED one of those [leaflets].” There is real openness to socialist ideas. Many youth and workers have said, “Socialism, YES!” when they meet us on the streets. So, it’s obvious that ordinary people are energized by a campaign that isn’t beholden to corporate America and is speaking out for the needs of the 99%. We need to build a mass movement, independent from both big business parties, as an initial step to break corporate control of U.S. politics and to start transforming the country and the world!