Strategies for party building will look different depending on which of six distinct party systems you're working with. Some are fertile ground for independent politics.
I am not convinced that socialists and progressives trying to build power within and ultimately realign the Democratic Party would benefit from diluting the party's brand. It's true that the corporate Democratic establishment have used the party's brand to attack progressives as fake Democrats (that was AIPAC's main strategy against Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman). But the party brand is not fixed, it's malleable and it can be weaponized by progressives against the establishment. Just like how the Tea Party attacked moderate Republicans as "RINOs", an insurgent progressive-populist movement can and should attack corporate Dems as DINOs. That's what DSA-endorsed candidate Oliver Larkin is doing right now in Florida, repeatedly bashing his opponent Jared Moskowitz as a "Ron DeSantis Democrat" (funnily enough, that's a term Moskowitz applied to himself). On instagram, I've seen many Democrats call Haley Stevens a "Republican" and not a 'real' Democrat (the same was said about Cuomo during NYC's Mayoral race). Right now, the most popular figures within the Democratic party's base are Mamdani, Bernie, AOC, etc. That gives the insurgent left real leverage to remold the party's brand and use it against those who have previously weaponized it against us. Perhaps, we should view the Democratic brand like we view the state: as a terrain of struggle and not something which inherently belongs to the capitalist class.
if you think political parties are the worst parties, consider sortition! civic assemblies, an instance of sortition, offer a way to work around both parties and career politicians.
Our city in Minnesota, Duluth, is one party DFL, with non-partisan candidates for everything except state and federal races. However, left candidates still generally seek the DFL endorsement, because the local DFL is controlled by the progressive wing. So even our chapter's DSA candidates seek that endorsement. As party bodies, the local units (we have two) can do things with money the chapter can't. If a candidate is flush, but faces no challenger, they can donate back to the local body. They local body can then spend it on a flyer or billboard or something in support of one of our candidates. Also, the DFL still has positive brand recognition for older voters. Every single one of our elected socialist members (7 and counting) have been both DSA and DFL endorsed (5 city councilors total with 2 currently, 1 county commissioner, and 1 state senator. We will gain a state rep this year, and maybe another county commissioner).
Am I correct in thinking that in your typology a (congressional) district qualifies as a Competitive System (category 6) simply by *not* qualifying for any of the other categories? Is there no way a "labor left" strategy could be viable in this 30 percent of the country?
It's not a catch-all bucket. Competitive congressional districts are districts a) in states without fusion voting and b) where an independent candidate running in the general would be a spoiler.
I'm not saying there can't be a left or labor electoral strategy in these places. I am saying that in these places the classic argument for why the left and labor have to work within the Democratic Party is strongest:
"These districts are the least hospitable to *independent* left-labor politics — the kind of places where the Left’s electoral strategy, as long as elections are conducted without proportional representation, *will have to run through the Democratic Party*."
I am not convinced that socialists and progressives trying to build power within and ultimately realign the Democratic Party would benefit from diluting the party's brand. It's true that the corporate Democratic establishment have used the party's brand to attack progressives as fake Democrats (that was AIPAC's main strategy against Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman). But the party brand is not fixed, it's malleable and it can be weaponized by progressives against the establishment. Just like how the Tea Party attacked moderate Republicans as "RINOs", an insurgent progressive-populist movement can and should attack corporate Dems as DINOs. That's what DSA-endorsed candidate Oliver Larkin is doing right now in Florida, repeatedly bashing his opponent Jared Moskowitz as a "Ron DeSantis Democrat" (funnily enough, that's a term Moskowitz applied to himself). On instagram, I've seen many Democrats call Haley Stevens a "Republican" and not a 'real' Democrat (the same was said about Cuomo during NYC's Mayoral race). Right now, the most popular figures within the Democratic party's base are Mamdani, Bernie, AOC, etc. That gives the insurgent left real leverage to remold the party's brand and use it against those who have previously weaponized it against us. Perhaps, we should view the Democratic brand like we view the state: as a terrain of struggle and not something which inherently belongs to the capitalist class.
if you think political parties are the worst parties, consider sortition! civic assemblies, an instance of sortition, offer a way to work around both parties and career politicians.
Our city in Minnesota, Duluth, is one party DFL, with non-partisan candidates for everything except state and federal races. However, left candidates still generally seek the DFL endorsement, because the local DFL is controlled by the progressive wing. So even our chapter's DSA candidates seek that endorsement. As party bodies, the local units (we have two) can do things with money the chapter can't. If a candidate is flush, but faces no challenger, they can donate back to the local body. They local body can then spend it on a flyer or billboard or something in support of one of our candidates. Also, the DFL still has positive brand recognition for older voters. Every single one of our elected socialist members (7 and counting) have been both DSA and DFL endorsed (5 city councilors total with 2 currently, 1 county commissioner, and 1 state senator. We will gain a state rep this year, and maybe another county commissioner).
Am I correct in thinking that in your typology a (congressional) district qualifies as a Competitive System (category 6) simply by *not* qualifying for any of the other categories? Is there no way a "labor left" strategy could be viable in this 30 percent of the country?
It's not a catch-all bucket. Competitive congressional districts are districts a) in states without fusion voting and b) where an independent candidate running in the general would be a spoiler.
I'm not saying there can't be a left or labor electoral strategy in these places. I am saying that in these places the classic argument for why the left and labor have to work within the Democratic Party is strongest:
"These districts are the least hospitable to *independent* left-labor politics — the kind of places where the Left’s electoral strategy, as long as elections are conducted without proportional representation, *will have to run through the Democratic Party*."
Does that make sense?