With the membership approaching 100k, and with the structure of the organization being democratic and up for revision given a strong enough push from the internal caucuses, why are there still unaffiliated american socialists?
I think the predominate view on this website is that DSA is a monolithic organization that is simply full of radlibs and social democrats or democratic socialists, however the richness of the caucuses and the amount of local marxist caucuses which are attempting to reform the DSA is in my opinion largely ignored here.
The Democratic Socialists of America is *our* organization as socialists of america and if you critique it without affiliating yourself and without acting to change it, than what are you truly doing? It is definitely one of the twelve types of liberalism for you criticize in private but not to the collective itself. Problems you have with the DSA from your critical perspective should be brought up every month at your local general meeting. Critique from outside the organization, as if you were not a socialist, is not going to affect change.
tl;dr: as a chapo who didn’t join DSA for years bc of the stigma here calling them radlibs, i ask of you, why are you seriously not in the DSA. for if you don’t like it, then join and act in the oppositional caucuses; and if you do like it but just haven’t joined, then come on comrade follow suit.
edit: This struggle session has been quite bountiful I will say. We have learned that there are three instances in the DSA's constitution that allow for (1) the expulsion of members that are under the discipline of democratic-centralist organizations (2) local charters will be revoked if the majority of members become under the discipline of democratic-centralism and that (3) local youth charters will be revoked if majority of members become. dem-cent.
I have what amounts to about a 15 hour workday, 7 days a week.
I live an hour away from any of the nearest large cities.
Financially, don't have much extra cash to afford extra trips into the cities and all that would cost.
So, I resign myself to sitting on the sidelines cheering folks on that are doing things.
Can’t argue with that obviously; however there’s always being able to vote on national programs and whatnot which doesn’t require anything but an internet connection. Might be something to consider!
hmm.. I suppose I could look into that.
"No activism like slackdivism," am'i'right?
Plus being a non-active member affords infinitely better seats on the sideline than being unaffiliated in general. 😉 you’ll see all the juicy action
I'm not in DSA because I'm in an actual Marxist organization, one which is more than happy to work with members of local DSA groups or other organizations in a united-front fashion on specific issues or campaigns (except trying to get Dems elected, obviously), since that's an opportunity to put forth our politics and possibly even recruit DSA members sick of dealing with the Harringtonite succdems' bullshit. My current org is one which actually operates according to democratic centralism, is single-tendency, and focuses on recruiting members for the purposes of developing future revolutionary cadre and potential working-class leaders. This means we encourage every member to be regularly active in some fashion, and don't exaggerate our size by counting inactive "paper members" like the DSA does.
When we vote on proposals, the outcomes of those votes are always binding. We haven't gotten stuck in endless, unproductive debates with people who aren't changing their mind over the question of Dem entryism since we split from our old organization. We start off with political agreement on at least 95% of issues and 100% of the most important issues, and discussion is held with the explicit goal of getting shit done or helping to educate and develop newer members.
Whatever problems my old org had, the DSA Harringtonites are almost certainly much worse still. If the best Marxist elements of DSA were to consider joining up into a faction and splitting from the DSA altogether, they'd start off fewer in number but they'd have much greater political unity, and could develop a coherent political program with the clarity needed to organize quickly and punch above their weight. If some sort of unambiguously Marxist, democratic-centralist ex-DSA entity were formed in this fashion, one which shares my org's goals of breaking away from the Dems completely and building an independent workers' party and the basis for a revolutionary party, I would feel a little more comfortable forming a coalition with that group than with the DSA as it exists now. When the Bolsheviks and their co-thinkers broke off from the 2nd international, they were consciously breaking away from the same sort of opportunists who continue to occupy the DSA's national leadership, Harringtonites more than happy to endorse social imperialism by backing Bernie "F-35" Sanders.
I'm sick of having to relitigate the Dem entryism question over and over again when the accumulated experience of the past 4 years or so, spent dealing with other people who continued clinging to false hope in Bernie, AOC, etc. should be more than conclusive, and that's without mentioning the similar failed Jesse Jackson campaign and the dissolution of most of the old Rainbow Coalition and old Black Maoists into the Democratic Party. I'm not going to even entertain the idea of DSA entryism or "dual membership" when I can help build my own organization, one which had the clarity to cut through all the opportunist and popular-frontist bullshit to hit the ground running and grow considerably (in relative terms anyway) since BLM came back with a vengeance this past year, and despite the objective obstacles presented by social distancing. This was during a period when other organizations or former members of completely dissolved orgs were still licking their wounds and trying to figure out what the hell to do next after getting a massive hangover from Bernie going from most likely to win to getting completely ratfucked and becoming completely irrelevant. Again, if I'm gonna deal with the DSA at all, it'll be only on a united-front basis on non-electoral campaigns (unless, of course, a local DSA branch in the same area is endorsing an independent socialist candidate, or the campaign is a ballot question worth organizing around).
I’m sick of having to relitigate the Dem entryism question over and over again
The only way the left is going to get big enough to do anything is by convincing more people to join us. That necessarily means relitigating questions that are old hat to you. It's the difference between "it's not my job to educate you" vs. "as revolutionaries, we don’t have the right to say we are tired of explaining." The goal isn't to find other leftists who already agree with you; the goal is to convince non-leftists to become leftists.
after getting a massive hangover from Bernie going from most likely to win to getting completely ratfucked and becoming completely irrelevant
Bernie got ratfucked in 2016 and it didn't make his ideas irrelevant -- politicians for lower offices won (and keep winning) running on variations of his playbook, and Bernie himself came back with a much stronger campaign in 2020. He also did more to make the word "socialism" safe for mainstream political consumption than a generation of small, explicitly-leftist political groups. Writing off that entire branch of politics is a mistake.
I should make it clear that just because I'm sick of explaining the problems with Dem entryism doesn't mean I'm gonna stop if it's necessary to continue. Probably half of my comments on this site are variations of me doing just that, because I know some of y'all are actually listening and searching for any excuse not to have to deal with DSA's bullshit. I know that being a good Marxist requires explaining the obvious, ad nauseam.
What I absolutely will not abide, however, is spending any more time having to relitigate this question with opportunist leaders, with opportunists and careerists who will simply not fucking listen, especially if they're revisionist Marxists who should know better and will continue to drag the orgs they control away from revolutionary politics. I have firsthand experience dealing with this, being forced to develop a siege mentality with my co-thinkers against the majority of my own comrades, and I've never even been a DSA member.
I would much rather be making this case to people who might be on the fence, people who might have been Bernie or AOC supporters even less than a year ago but are now receptive to a more radical message, and eagerly searching for a more explicitly revolutionary approach. I want to make this case to the fresh layers, the quickly-radicalizing and advanced-consciousness layers of the working class, the sort of people who might actually listen.
What I absolutely will not abide, however, is spending any more time having to relitigate this question with opportunist leaders,
Talking to them is necessary, if only because it's a good way of reaching the people they speak to.
And this edges dangerously close to "my school of leftist thought is definitely right, and all others are definitely wrong." No one for sure has all the right answers, because no one has yet built socialism in the imperial core.
Unless we're in the same org, I would rather just speak to rank-and-file members of other orgs directly if they're willing to listen, or give them leaflets if I get the chance. Senior and high-ranking leaders of opportunist orgs tend to be invested in continuing what they've been doing even if they took a wrong turn somewhere and refuse to self-correct. If I'm somehow still in the same org as such people, something has gone horribly wrong.
While you're correct that none of us can be completely sure our tendency is correct, given the experience of the past 5 or so years, especially the past year, it's easier than ever to write off the Dem-entryist strategy as counterproductive, a waste of comrades' scarce time, money, and energy that could be better spent on independent coalition-building/party-building or on any number of issue-specific campaigns and struggles where working-class people and community members are active.
When the Bolsheviks and their co-thinkers broke off from the 2nd international, they were consciously breaking away from the same sort of opportunists who continue to occupy the DSA’s national leadership, Harringtonites more than happy to endorse social imperialism by backing Bernie “F-35” Sanders.
Τhe difference is that they broke away in 1912, when a revolution was much closer to happening. Remember that by that time an anti-monarchist revolution had already been attempted, but failed. There is no real hope for something "unambiguously marxist" or single tendency gaining strong presence in the US just yet. I don't even think anyone has come close to achieving anything big as a single tendency party or something like that anywhere in the west post-70s, and even in most other countries. That's not an indictment of these organizations since I am in one, but they usually benefit from being under a big tent. Like, the best anyone in the US can hope for for the next decades is something analogous to what Chavez or Morales did, and their parties were far from "single tendency". The DSA is something that has exposure and something that doesn't confuse people, unlike the myriads of tiny socialist organisations. There will be plenty of time to split with them when there is actually a serious reason and a good opportunity which will make people notice to do that. The DSA could work fine as a big tent thing for a while. Breaking up into ever smaller groups that never coalesce together has always been a cancer for the left, especially in more recent years, and it becomes impossible to rise above a certain level when that happens.
EDIT: One thing that may complicate this is that, apparently, the DSA can expel people if they belong to democratic centralist orgs. Which sucks. But the DSA isn't something to be dismissed so easily.
the best anyone in the US can hope for for the next decades is something analogous to what Chavez or Morales did
Examples U.S. leftists tend to forget when they write off electoralism.
The problem with Chavez and Morales isn't that they ran their parties in elections, but that their parties are social-democratic parties.
Meanwhile, rejecting Dem entryism isn't equivalent to rejection of participation in elections. The problem in the US is that we don't even have a large enough workers' party to even pull off what these two have, including fending off attempted coups against them and their parties. The much more likely outcome of a succdem winning a presidential election (if they somehow got past the entire gauntlet of ratfuckery, including gerrymandering and the electoral college) is that they'd probably just end up like Lula (or worse, like Allende) without any significant party presence in both houses of congress, and without an extremely mobilized and organized working class, the likes of which we've frankly never seen in the US.
The much more likely outcome of a succdem winning a presidential election (if they somehow got past the entire gauntlet of ratfuckery, including gerrymandering and the electoral college) is that they’d probably just end up like Lula (or worse, like Allende) without any significant party presence in both houses of congress, and without an extremely mobilized and organized working class, the likes of which we’ve frankly never seen in the US.
FDR is the counterexample here. He was extremely successful, and while he had much stronger party support than DSA-style Democrats have within the party today, he still had significant intra-party opposition (that's ultimately why Henry Wallace was replaced by Truman) and much less worker support than what you're describing. Some social democratic president in 2024 or beyond wouldn't be a 1:1 comparison for all sorts of reasons, but that's probably the best starting point.
Counterpoints:
- FDR ran as a Democrat and was never not a liberal. He never called himself a socialist, and he was never a social democrat. Bernie is also not even a social democrat, and not worth even critically supporting (because he's an imperialist).
- FDR governed during a period when the international left was close to its peak strength, when the prospect of socialist revolution was extremely plausible and the US working class was immiserated and mad as hell. The implicit revolutionary threat implied by the continued existence of the Soviet Union pressured FDR's policies leftward to the point that his New Deal made him look like a succdem (when in reality he was just a Keynesian liberal).
- FDR actually did almost get couped by plutocrats (including Prescott Bush, Dubya's grandfather) during his first term because of this as though he were a succdem, because his fiscal policy and creation of a welfare state hurt their profits and the biggest capitalists were willing to gamble on fascism. It was only because Smedley Butler ratted out the consipirators that the coup failed, though of course none were prosecuted.
not worth even critically supporting (because he’s an imperialist)
It never ceases to amaze me how American leftists will critically support the Soviet Union or China on the grounds that in tough situations real-world socialists have to make hard compromises, but then left-ish American politicians have to be perfect avatars of pure theory. Look at how Bernie was raked over the coals for the simple factual statement that Cubans have good healthcare and education. If you won't even critically support the closest thing to a socialist since Debs, who had a far, far better chance to win than Debs, you're not really serious about winning.
Asking for people to support an actual socialist (which, again, Bernie is not), even a revisionist, isn't asking that much. I supported and voted for Hawkins, himself probably far from perfect, but at least he's an actual socialist and the program he ran on this year is implicitly anti-imperialist. Hawkins is probably the bare minimum to be honest, a mere starting point. I'm not asking for the second coming of Lenin here, but we can do much better than to settle for an FDR-style liberal imperialist who used to be a Eugene Debs fanboy 40+ years ago, who still thinks the left should work in a popular front led by Joe Biden. We can do better than continue to entertain this dead-end strategy of trying either to take over the Dems from the inside or attempting some sort of dirty break from the Dems from the inside.
Even the CTH hosts, some of Bernie's biggest supporters, now know better than to continue with this strategy, because they were always sincere enemies of the neoliberal clique who actually control the Democratic Party, unlike Bernie himself who considers Biden a friend. Winning a general election is hard enough by itself; allowing the Democrats to decide the fate of your campaign, handicapping yourself by playing primary Calvinball with them and giving the Dems extra opportunities to ruin it before the general election even starts is a completely avoidable mistake, a tempting false alternative to doing the difficult work needed to establish an independent socialist party capable of externally challenging the Democrats.
I supported and voted for Hawkins
We can do better than continue to entertain this dead-end strategy of trying either to take over the Dems from the inside or attempting some sort of dirty break from the Dems from the inside.
Either of those strategies is far more promising than supporting the likes of Howie Hawkins. Sanders actually had a real shot. No tiny, independent leftist third party ever has. Tons of ordinary people supported Bernie -- not just terminally-online leftists, not just the same cadre of local leftists who've been hopping from splinter group to splinter group since the 60s. We need numbers to win, and one approach has actually put something approaching the required numbers together.
Bernie had "the numbers" but he didn't have anything even remotely approaching a revolutionary program, nor did he even attempt to sustain momentum between elections until he announced he was running again in 2019, leaving the in-between non-electoral work to the DSA. Even if Bernie somehow won, what would that accomplish? He would still support regime change overseas, and he would have maybe used his executive powers to make life marginally better for working-class Americans, enjoying almost no support from congress. Some elements of the working class who just wanted free healthcare and education might go back to being complete libs content with Bernie's FDR-style "social imperialism", instead of seeing past their immediate concerns and taking a broader internationalist perspective, not unlike the spoiled-rotten Scandinavian libs who've been bought off and still enjoy even higher living standards off the backs of the global proletariat than Anglos do, even as they've begun to feel the inevitable gravitational pull of neoliberal austerity.
Hawkins obviously had no shot at winning; that ridiculous expectation isn't why I supported him. Hawkins ran not on the basis of some delusion that he'd win the electoral college or the popular vote, but because Greens have to run a presidential candidate to stay on the ballot; it was an opportunity for Hawkins to put forth something closer to a revolutionary political program and actually attempt to start the long, difficult process of building an independent working-class coalition as the basis for an eventual independent socialist party, even if it means starting almost from scratch with "splinter groups" with mostly-correct politics. Reaching out to chronic non-voters, almost 40% of the eligible voting-age population, without having to conform to the artificial limitations imposed by Democratic leadership, in addition to attracting the left-most 3rd party and Dem voters just waiting for an excuse to vote for a candidate who actually gives a shit about them, means an independent workers' party has the potential to eventually have the numbers advantage, while still building and organizing around an actual socialist banner.
he didn’t have anything even remotely approaching a revolutionary program
Because he's not Lenin, he's a Senator in his 70s. You want to talk about ridiculous expectations? If you write off anyone who isn't a revolutionary, you're not getting anything done, at least not anytime soon.
Even if Bernie somehow won, what would that accomplish? He would still support regime change overseas
This is far too pessimistic. For every aspect of imperialism you can point to and say he supported, you can also point to something like his opposition to the Iraq War or his praise of Cuba.
he would have maybe used his executive powers to make life marginally better for working-class Americans
Marginally better for you is life-changing for someone else.
actually attempt to start the long, difficult process of building an independent working-class coalition as the basis for an eventual independent socialist party
The Sanders campaign did far more to push socialism into mainstream political consciousness than countless efforts like this. It's much easier to turn people on to leftist ideas and get them to join leftist organizations when capitalist realism has been challenged at the highest level.
no one benefits in the US from keeping disparate factions under Dems' big tent other than corporate lobbies & movement wreckers
The DSA is something to be dismissed in practice because of its insistence on the ballot box as a measure of political will
movement wreckers
Wreck what movement? You don't even have a real movement yet, and you're not going to unless there is at least some organization that can push for greater visibility and arrange things.
BLM & Occupy & Green & Peace & Rainbow Coalition & so many other movements all come to mind
all have reduced visibility and viability since they were first thrust on the scene... all because of insistence on Democratic party entryism & inordinate focus on getting White liberals to embrace that criticism of the Democratic party. Something they are mostly wont to do
inordinate focus on getting White liberals to embrace that criticism of the Democratic party
If you can't get white liberals to abandon the Democratic Party, good luck accomplishing anything with any sort of leftist strategy. They're not going to sit idly by while they lose political power, so it's either get them on board or fight against them. And if you're fighting against them, you're taking on the two major political parties in the most powerful country on the planet, right at home.
Well, then good luck. I personally don't see how any leftist movement is going anywhere if it can't even siphon off significant support from the leftmost major party in the country.
And a bunch are getting on board. Most people here used to be libs.
without significant issues to rally around, whether they're strictly economic or strictly social or some combination, we're just preparing ourselves to be melted back down into the Democratic Party... pretty simple
Issues like universal healthcare? The cost of a college education? A job guarantee? Ending police violence?
There are plenty of issues that can (and already have, to a limited extent) split off white liberals from the Democratic Party.
oh right, those things that the Democratic Party leadership have repeatedly & unabashedly insisted will not be taken up in Congress, whether controlled by Dems or not?
Uh, yes. Those are exactly the type of issues that people will rally around, that won't simply get melted back into the Democratic Party. Mainstream Democrats' refusal to move on them is exactly why so many people are looking at least as far as the left wing of the party.
but again, we're talking about electoralism and "voting" these "reforms" into place... which will require Democratic Party politicking, not just attracting a critical mass of White liberal base (something that through experience does not happen)
not just attracting a critical mass of White liberal base (something that through experience does not happen)
Again, if you believe this, good luck. If you're planning on fighting both major parties in the most powerful country on the planet, you're veering into "I'll start a protracted people's war with my five True Leftist friends" territory. The numbers just ain't there.
which will require Democratic Party politicking
The viability of this changes as the size of the left grows. If the DSA -- not a marxist group, but a group that pushes policies significantly to the left of Democrats, that Democrats have no current interest in adopting -- starts winning more local seats and builds more of a congressional caucus, mainstream Democrats might balk at rigging a presidential primary against them, or might not be able to do so.
The numbers aren't there if we write off white liberals without even trying. If we can turn some libs into leftists, there's a shot.
okay, keep lionizing and steel-manning the "potential" for White liberals to embrace even the slightest left reform
we'll be old & grey by the time you realize they aren't budging
we’ll be old & grey by the time you realize they aren’t budging
OK, then what's your plan? Honestly, how do you expect to beat both the Democrats and Republicans without siphoning off any significant support from either party? I'm not fucking with you -- I'm all ears if you have a workable idea. I just don't see it, and defeatism isn't acceptable.
And if your answer is "activate the people who don't regularly vote," Bernie just tried that, and it wasn't enough. And if your answer is "get them involved in direct action instead of voting," I have a hard time believing that people who aren't politically active at all, who didn't even go out and vote, are going to show up in the numbers and the regularity it would take to sustain any sort of non-electoral campaign.
Nothing is happening within electoral politics in America... and if you can't see that over the course of 2020, then I am not sure what you're holding out hope for
Everything and I mean EVERYTHING that progressives & radlibs and all of their disparate factions attempted to throw against the wall has been roundly rejected. That means M4A & "Defund the Police" and "tax the rich" and just about every slogan or "movement" you could think of will be co-opted/watered down/ and rejected all the same
The Dems exist to lock out the left, not to fairly & justly allow the left to outmaneuver their legitimacy
There is no "workable idea" if your plan is to "vote" in anti-capitalism & universal single-payer. The corporate lobbies own both parties, there is no entryism... to hold out hope that they (meaning liberal voters & DNC apparatchiks) will one day see clearly the moral high-ground is delusional. And I do mean that
So your answer is: nothing. You have no alternate plan.
If the Bernie/DSA strategy has only a 1% chance of success, it's still better than your plan, which is nothing and has no chance of success. If the Bernie/DSA strategy is completely hopeless, it's still better than your plan -- which is nothing -- because it will at least get people together who might think of a better answer. Forgive me for thinking this conversation has been useless if the best you can come up with is complaints.
no, it's literally organizing at work and among your friends and family... that's really it
no one has a "plan", isn't that obvious? The DSA ESPECIALLY doesn't have a plan because all they need you to do is VOOT... which in and of itself accomplishes 0
Organize who?
You've written off all Democratic voters, and I'm assuming you're not planning on chuds leading you to the promised land either. So we're back to asking people who don't vote -- and who didn't come out to vote in big numbers even when Bernie offered them material improvements -- to do something far more politically involved than voting.
Good luck.
Your co-workers... not voters as some necessary unquestionably coherent bloc. Why are you ignoring dual power? Why are you ignoring the real effect that workers can have to influence & change their own economic situations? Real organizing starts on the community & workplace level as far from the ballot box as you can think.
Poor people don't vote because they don't see it working, and can you really blame them? We don't have to convince poor people to vote for our personal faves, we can just organize among our fellow workers & poor and see what they want. Mao knew this perfectly well
"organizing" voters is like herding cats, they're motivated by selfish & performative cable news talking points... not needed revolutionary change.
So we’re back to asking people who don’t vote – and who didn’t come out to vote in big numbers even when Bernie offered them material improvements – to do something far more politically involved than voting.
Good luck.
No, we're asking for basic economic rights & workplace democracy... that's literally what leftism is
imagining you can vote away the rich's wealth was eschewed longer than 120 years ago. It's not happening
Note also that "organize!" is no more of a plan than "vote!" is. Vague directives are useless. You have no plan, you're just taking pot shots at people who are actually trying something with a chance at working.
You have no plan lol... so keep paying your DSA dues and hoping & voting
Hoping and voting all your life
With the exception of BLM and some environmental movements, these are not going on any longer. And none of them really ever had much more potential than what was realized, except maybe BLM. It is natural for these things to come and go, but what they leave behind is valuable. What the US completely lacks is a major coordinated working class movement that can keep going. This sort of stuff doesn't just start on its own without any political representation. Heck, the US almost completely lacks labor unions, especially labor unions willing to strike. This is a BIG deal that many people overlook. There are certain things that have to be put into place before we can really talk about who's just a radlib, who's an opportunist, who to get rid off and if there is a point in splitting. I'm not under the illusion the DSA is great or anything, and I do think participation and support of the DSA would probably work better as part of a strategy of a democratic centralist organisation that decided supporting the DSA is useful. But it is good to have ONE thing you can point to people and say, here, come with us, and we will try to make things better. It is good to be able to influence things within said thing, when it is by far the most prevalent carrier of left wing politics in the US. The fact that it is so loose is a double edged sword. It makes it easy to infiltrate, but also it can accommodate many different people, and it makes the fact that it can be infiltrated matter less (for now) exactly because there is no strong central direction. There are important things that have to be done before there is any point in trying to put together something more robust.
"natural for these things to come and go"
sounds more like passive acceptance of the ineffectiveness in America of electoralism to take up any important social issue. not just a matter of individual voters not being motivated to vote for policy platforms that practically address their own interests
trying to make things better is all well and good, but if we're not self-criticizing and moving away from ineffective strategies, then we're just swirling in the toilet of Democratic Party politics. I wouldn't even say it's a double-edged sword, the edge of two-party electoral determinism always faces those who dissent in US
sounds more like passive acceptance of the ineffectiveness in America of electoralism to take up any important social issue.
No, it just... Is. When there is an outburst, it doesn't last very long usually. I don't know what you expected to happen but the way things are there wasn't much you could do to keep them going for years somehow.
trying to make things better is all well and good, but if we’re not self-criticizing and moving away from ineffective strategies,
I see no signs it is an ineffective strategy. On the contrary. I think the issue is that you expect something to happen that is impossible. I don't know why you keep talking about electoralism, that's not nearly the most important reason to participate.
for many liberals, including much older and well-established frequent voters, those notions of "democracy" or "electoral compromise" or whatever are literally the prime motivating factors
it's just the same feel-good notion we as workers get when we buy the lottery ticket. it's sublimated instantaneously when you leave the polling place
having politics mean absolutely nothing & be in the background is infinitely more comforting for them
everything else is melted down into Democratic Party signifiers & shibboleths... nothing is internalized & all decent intention is stripped of meaning within the DNC sausage-making process
Yes but what does that have to do with what I said? That's a very widespread attitude and it won't easily change. I said many times that what's really important is that more workplaces get organized, and unions expand. This is something that the DSA CAN aid with, provided enough people push for that. It also can't hurt that they promote local and candidates who are amenable to the left's causes, support unions. The fact that so many people now are willing to consider the left and don't get an aneurysm when you mention socialism is an immense success for the US. No one really expected that could happen. No one expected the widespread support for BLM either. But there are limits to what can be achieved in the short term. Class struggle isn't so advanced yet that DSA succs are "obsolete" or whatever. When people look at it and say "nah I'm not joining that, they're not radical enough and ineffective", usually they either end up joining some irrelevant book club at best, or nothing at all at worst. And there is no point to that.
I agree that short-term efforts & long-term goals can be considered separately, but these things do not happen within the context of voting
And the Democratic Party still stands as an obstacle, even if you accrete enough disaffected liberals & progressives over time. The Democratic Party isn't going anywhere, and looms large over the left's political considerations whether we want to admit it or not
I agree that short-term efforts & long-term goals can be considered separately, but these things do not happen within the context of voting
But why are you talking about voting? I am not.
And the Democratic Party still stands as an obstacle, even if you accrete enough disaffected liberals & progressives over time. The Democratic Party isn’t going anywhere, and looms large over the left’s political considerations whether we want to admit it or not
Yes, exactly, it looms large over the left, and it's not gonna stop just because someone wills it to or because someone refuses to participate in the DSA or whatever. There is little real progress that can be made without engaging with its structures and offshoots in any way, exactly because of how large and significant it is.
It's large, but in its own admissions & practical outcomes, it's not very significant
The democratic party is not significant? One of the two parties that have been governing the US since forever is not significant?
What?
The party's crowning achievement is that it went from the racist political affiliation of Slaveocracy & the KKK, to union busting & anti-communism & anti-Black liberation
not a very good track record, even if they secured others the right to vote Democrat
It's not about a good track record. I said it is significant. Which it is.
Is it not obvious in what way literally the largest, most influential, and most frequently governing party in the US during the last few decades is significant? There is this weird meme that people think the democratic party is just incompetent and ineffectual, but it's clearly not, they only act that way when they don't really want to do something that their voters want them to do.
what? they are the least meaningfully influential & accomplish very little
I didn't say this was unintentional on their part
How... How do they accomplish little? They accomplish tons, just like the republicans, they just don't accomplish anything we like because they don't want to.
By "accomplish", I'm talking specifically about attending to the needs of the great mass of people
But if you're talking about doing their damnedest to prevent any government-sponsored alleviation of suffering & stifle ideological drift away from liberalism, then yes the Dems are pulling their own weight deftly
This is a fantastic answer! Your arguments on "paper members" versus active, revolutionary cadres hit hard and have weight to them. I encourage everyone in this thread to read, re-read, and read again this response. I'm curious if you are talking about the PSL or perhaps just a local democratic centralist organization, of course if OPSEC is a concern no answer is needed.
My org is still pretty small right now but we might have a significant regional presence in a few years if we keep growing.
Wait so the main, central organization has a binding rule that bans chapters from creating their own binding rules?
I didn’t know they had a party line baked into their bylaws that lets them expel Leninists for wrongthink
They don't. Based on reading the relevant bylaw and other people's anecdotes about how the rule actually works, it's not particularly close to just automatically kicking out any Leninists they find. It's aimed at people from other organizations who join with the goal of taking over a DSA chapter, there's no automatic booting, and it sounds like in practice this isn't really an issue anyway.
Yeah maybe not in practice now but that rule probably exists so it can be activated cynically at some point.
The due process part of the rule makes that much more difficult. It's not just an "eject Leninists" button. And they do need a way to kick members out -- see the DSA representative that defected from the party line in the recent Chicago city council vote.
PSL specifically does not allow its members to be part of other orgs, when applying I was told id have to terminate my DSA membership. On the other hand DSA NPCs have told people to join PSL if they want to. That bylaw has never been enforced.
It is in the bylaws of the DSA constitution, Article 1 Section 3. However it might just be some old shit that hasn't been changed yet. I would like to see a challenge to that when the constitution is amended next.
technically it means you can explain yourself out of it when you disclose
the PSL is trustworthy enough for people not to care, unless you start doing a hecking entryism
Article 1 Section 3
It looks like you're referring to this:
Members can be expelled if they are found to be in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization or if they consistently engage in undemocratic, disruptive behavior or if they are under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization. Members facing expulsion must receive written notice of charges against them and must be given the opportunity to be heard before the NPC or a subcommittee thereof, appointed for the purpose of considering expulsion.
This reads different from a strict prohibition. For instance:
- "Members can be expelled if" -- this doesn't say "you can't join if," and it doesn't say "members must be expelled if." It looks like if you're in a ML organization you can join the DSA, and you're not going to be automatically shown the door if someone finds out about your ML membership.
- "If they are under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization" -- this doesn't say "if they're a member of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization." This looks designed to prevent an organized takeover of a DSA chapter by ML organizations, but not to prohibit cross-membership altogether. If a local ML organization decides to have all of its members join the local DSA chapter to turn it into a clone of the ML organization, this would check that. But if a bunch of members of that ML organization independently decide to join the DSA chapter, that sounds fine.
- "Members facing expulsion must receive written notice of charges against them and must be given the opportunity to be heard" -- pretty self-explanatory here. You're not just hauled out of there if you're found to be a card-carrying communist; you get due process.
This tracks with other comments about how the rule is actually enforced.
How so? It's clearly geared towards stopping planned takeovers of DSA chapters by other organizations, which is legitimate. And there needs to be some process for expelling members -- look at what recently happened with the DSA representative who broke ranks on defunding the police in Chicago. If you can't penalize that sort of behavior, you don't have much of a party.
Probably because they're just about the only other game in town in terms of the organized American left. Elsewhere in the thread at least one other person mentioned that they thought there was concern over Trostskyist shenanigans in the early days of the DSA, too. There are also comments about how no one has an example of it ever being enforced, and how there's discussion over scrapping that part entirely.
as ive heard it described it mostly had to do with trot groups trying to do entryism into other orgs, tho its never actually been enforced as far as i know
How does one join an opposition caucus and what do they do because the liberalism is painful
Well the first step is to join DSA national and then second step is to find your local and email them once your in national. then you’ll get added to the local’s comm network, and from there it is a matter of either founding or finding the local marxist caucus or democratic centralist caucus. you might even be pleasantly surprised to find that your local already is anti-liberal and anti-DSA national’s liberalism like i did.
I just spam post stalin memes on the discord and see who reacts.. Boom, caucus formed.
Our leadership is a combination of leftist literature professors and workers that have posters of Mao and Xi on their walls. There are a few radlibs, but they usually just hang back and show up to protests/do yoga meetups.
That is rad as hell. After the holidays are over and I have a somewhat normal work week again, ill consider joining. I have commitment issues but I thought about joining for a couple years now. I also might actually make new friends which after this pandemic feels desperately needed. All my IRL friends are huge libs. We don't ever really talk politics, I've tried to get them to go to BLM protests with me and they are less than interested
It's like getting a library card. Just because you have a library card, doesn't mean you approve of every book in there. It's just another resource.
I feel like you're kind of downplaying the genuine differences people have on the question of how to organise. Some people don't like the hierarchical structure and prefer horizontal organising, others don't want to deal with the ideological ecclectisism and prefer to organise among people with similar ideology. Also, I think people can totally critique an org without affiliating with it so long as it is a critique grounded in what actually is materially going on and comes from a principled, non-sectarian place. I don't affiliate with DSA because I'm an ML who really values organising in a democratic centralist, bolshevik style party. Maybe you dont agree that MLs should be doing that and they should join the DSA instead, but if I was in DSA in the communist caucus I would just wish I was in an ML party instead.
My point is why can you not do both? Being in the DSA isn’t mutually exclusive with being active in the PSL or other democratic centralist organization. You would be able to at least vote in national and local DSA internal matters. The DSA should serve as a catch all for anti-capitalist politics wherein we can all have congregation. There is no reason to prevent organizing outside of that scope also.
edit: also even the bolsheviks were affiliated with the larger Russian Social Democratic Labor Party as the vehicle through which they practiced mass membership politics and as the vehicle through which the early stages of the revolution was organized
You're right, and I know people that do that where I'm at but some of us only have time to be in a single org. DSA would absolutely be part of the united front as that formation becomes more concrete so I understand where you're coming from though.
I appreciate that comrade, joining and contributing no time at all still affords you voting rights by the way! Something to consider in the effort to de-liberalize the united front!
Being in the DSA isn’t mutually exclusive with being active in the PSL or other democratic centralist organization
PSL considers DSA a political party, not a "catch all for anti-capitalist politics." This is different than how DSA views itself. The consequence is that PSL members cannot also be members of DSA. Your proposal would require delegates to the PSL National Congress to approve a motion that recognizes the DSA as a broad coalition that the PSL wants to enter.
I feel like this would be disastrous to the relationship between PSL and DSA. Most DSA members I know would, rightfully, see this as an attempt to co-opt DSA. We can cooperate and coalition without PSL becoming a bloc within DSA.
Even the bolsheviks were affiliated with the larger Russian Social Democratic Labor Party as the vehicle through which they practiced mass membership politics
The Bolsheviks, as a bloc, decided to participate in the coalition RSDLP until 1912. That is a little different than individual Bolsheviks choosing to also be members of the RSDLP.
I guess at that point I would critique the PSL's designating of the DSA as a sectarian political party; however you are right in the sense that I cannot critique members for following party discipline as they of course should do.
I understand that criticism. Having been in DSA and other political parties, DSA is something different.
A major reason I chose to join PSL is that the party provides significantly more national support than DSA in my experience. When I was in DSA, our branch was isolated from other branches, and our members were generally distrustful of the national organization.
In my experience, PSL has a very supportive national structure. There is regular coordination between the branches, the party provides a lot of helpful resources, the central committee seems to faithfully carry out the platform voted on at the last congress, and the trust branches place in the central committee leads to a strong unity in action. The party has a much larger influence than its membership would imply.
IIRC, the attempt within DSA to do this is to take advantage of their massive membership. DSA does have impressive membership numbers. But here are my criticisms:
- There are no expectations of members in DSA, so the number does not say much. My local chapter claims 500 members, but most of those people were not active organizers. I met around 75 people during my time in DSA.
- Building a nation-wide democratic centralist structure from the ground-up is not easy. I was involved with getting a police abolition organization off the ground in just my city. The hardest part, by far, was building the structure of the organization. Recruiting has been comparatively easier.
Also, I don't feel like I have lost much from leaving DSA. I still have a strong relationship with many of the members, and we still coalition together. I don't remember casting any particularly important votes during my time.
It seems also that in the DSA constitution bylaws Article 1 Section 3 members who are under the discipline of a democratic centralist party are subject to expulsion from the DSA. So it isnt just the PSL preventing members from joining DSA, the DSA can expulse members who are in PSL if it is found out. You learn something new everyday
as a cishet white chaser, I'm not DSA because it's already a crowded market
This is the main thing that prevents me from joining an organization
Apparently in the Bylaws of the DSA Constitution from 2019 in Article 1 Section 3, it is stated that if a member is under the discipline of a democratic centralist organization, then said member is subject to expulsion from the DSA. Something to consider for those of us who appreciate the democratic centralist organizations.
Something to consider for those of us who appreciate the democratic centralism organizations
Also knows as communists. They expel communists. Because they are anti-communist and pro-American regime change
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/07/06/dsa-jacobin-iso-socialism-conference-us-funded-regime-change/
here's some of the marxist and communist caucuses in DSA
https://communistcaucus.com
https://reformandrevolution.org
https://breadandrosesdsa.org
https://classunity.org
https://twitter.com/revpower_dsa
https://dsaemerge.org
https://redstarsf.org
https://redcaucus.org
E: also since this person is spamming this link everywhere and i know half the people upvoting it havent even read past the headline i'll leave this dsa forums discussion on it here too if anyone wants to read through it more because while i like the grayzone and Ben and Blumenthal overall i think this article is largely disingenuous in its framing and this person is completely incoherent in their posts claiming shit like "all dsa leaders are taking funding from the NED" and other ridiculous shit, which probably means they didnt even read the article themselves.
Why does a small organization of 70,000 socialists have EIGHT different groups of marxists trying to push it left? Like jesus christ, why dont they all merge? They have the same goal right?
The first 4 work on different things mostly, one is a ydsa caucus, and 3 are local caucuses.
Why do you hold conferences with pro-regime change speakers and funding from the NED?
PSL isn’t cringe. Join them instead and stop being a DSA chauvinist
lol i didnt even talk about my ideologies do you even know what the word chauvinist means?
I’m talking about social-chauvinists as Lenin described them. Social reformist nationalists and imperialists. Socialism for me, imperialism and colonialism for thee. The lack of international proletarian solidarity in favor of opportunistic short—term reforms. The tendency that makes up DSA at its very core.
There's people with different ideologies in dsa you understand that right? Calling someone a chauvinist without knowing their beliefs is incoherent.
Doesn’t matter, the DSA is not a dem cent organization so it’s composition is not that relevant. What’s relevant is it’s actions and leadership, both of which are social-chauvinist, anti-communist and imperialist. They are NED funded, literal feds.
Not being a dem cent org means its composition IS what is relevant, jfc the "leadership" is appointed by the constituency, theres several literal communists on the NPC. Please learn about the real world and the things around you stop living vicariously through online memes. This kind of childish online shit i wont ever take seriously, you people need to log off more.
Membership composition matters when the organization is not democratic? 🤔
Why are you NED funded? Why do you have pro-regime change speakers at official DSA conferences invited to speak by the DSA to speak to its impressionable audience of radlibs? 🤔
Why do you keep defending this? 🤔
DSA is not democratic? you literally dont even know how the org works. That article speaks about one person affiliated with one branch of DSA lol this is so stupid, grow up with this shit. I don't defend any shitty thing DSA does, theres continual change pushed in the org. Learn about the things you're outraged about.
No they are not dem cent
Jacobin magazine’s owner and all of the leadership of the DSA are all in the tank with NED funding and imperialism. All of them. Why are you trying to salvage this piece of shit that’s just as bad and just as anti-communist as the Democratic Party?
It’s naive radlibs and social chauvinists like you that fill /r/PCM and leftoid subreddits. Stop projecting your cringe into others
Leaders: all literally take NED funding and push pro-American lines
You: wow way to connect dots that aren’t there you loony lefty!!
this is deranged lol which leaders are you referring to? the npc? you literally havent even read the entire article you linked have you?
I don't think you understand what democratic centralism means. Emphasis on the CENTRALISM part. The DSA isn't undemocratic, it is not CENTRALIST. Which is not necessarily always a good thing but it may be, for now, and it also means that the composition absolutely does matter because there is hardly a strong central direction, and there is a LOT of wiggle room. Like, literally the article you posted brings this up.
Oh sorry, they reserve the right to ban communists and shut down their chapters if they get a little tooo principled and communist
i ask of you, why are you seriously not in the DSA
I joined radical labor instead. Mostly uncritical support for my comrades in the PSL/DSA/SA/etc. pursuing the other half of dual power though.
My local is incredibly embarrassing radlib shit, does almost nothing, and I do not have the time to be the one to change that. There are other local activist groups that do good work.
My local has apparently been doing book club discussions on State and Revolution, which I should probably get in on.
There is no left near me and i both can't afford and don't have the time to drive 3+ hours to the local dsa
Yeah for real. The DSA has absolutely zero reach outside of big cities and college campuses. I mean, look at that post from the other day where a chapo didn't even know that Hooters is a real restaurant. It's shit like that that shows just how disconnected these supposed "leftists" are to normies.
I tried to find one near me but the closest one was really far away. On the DSA's site they say you can form a new chapter if your area isn't covered by another, so I decided to try that. Well, guess what, the website said I was under the jurisdiction of the one that was already really far away! So what am I supposed to do? Drive really far to one that has nothing to do with local issues?
Because I'm a filthy accelerationist and 100% believe the only way we will ever have meaningful change is through blood and fire.
Edit: spelling
