…alist movement. Revolution is not idealistic — it has more basis in historical reality than reform. We want to recruit through coalitions and demonstrated radicalism, and mobilize our membership to the fullest extent before opening the tent flap to more liberals. We want to radicalize unions (trade, tenant, and other) and encourage them to leverage their potential power for revolutionary political change, rather than limiting it to self-interested gains. We want to aid the development of collective power outside of traditional unions, like the self-organized sex workers post-SESTA and the nonworking poor. We are even fighting for certain legislative changes, which don’t actually require personality-based campaigns!
There have also been extremely cogent criticisms, from many sources, of the plan to make reliable voters the next target for membership. In a country where former felons, undocumented immigrants, and disenfranchised minorities are not included in our bourgeois electoral system, a Sanders-based growth strategy would do very little to diversify the organization’s base. It would grow the white, liberal side of the organization rather than acknowledge our past issues with homogenous recruitment pools. It would also leave out any group currently alienated by Sanders’ own record on anti-sex work legislation and U.S. imperialism. (His actual political stances are obviously worthy of their own lengthy criticism.)