Generally speaking, big parties start out as small ones. The CPC started with 50 members. Those are the building blocks.
And you can demean parties for having ideological standards all you want, but liberals will never accomplish our goals. We either get actual socialism or we all boil alive from climate change. Medicare For All isn't gonna cut it.
But we've tried the small party thing for decades now. It hasn't worked, and it hasn't produced much of anything. It didn't even get large numbers of people talking about socialism, which is a significant step in a country so diametrically opposed to it. The Bernie campaigns at least did that, and at least generated some concrete policy proposals you can bring up and get taken seriously.
Medicare for All isn't going to cut it, but that's not the end goal. That's an immediate goal, and building a mass movement around that might offer a path to bigger goals.
But we’ve tried the small party thing for decades now.
Nobody is consciously setting out to keep their parties small.
It hasn’t worked, and it hasn’t produced much of anything.
Nothing's worked in the US, and "small parties" isn't a strategy; the question should be how to make socialist parties bigger, because that's the only thing that's worked anywhere in history, and it's worked for entire countries.
That’s an immediate goal, and building a mass movement around that might offer a path to bigger goals.
Building a mass movement around a liberal reform that most of the world already has won't bring us even remotely closer to achieving socialism.
The PSL, for instance, has a higher bar to entry than the DSA. That's a conscious decision to have a smaller number of members in exchange for more vetting. One easy way to help your socialist party grow is to not require interviews.
Building a mass movement around a liberal reform that most of the world already has won’t bring us even remotely closer to achieving socialism.
It absolutely will in a country as right wing as the U.S.
The PSL, for instance, has a higher bar to entry than the DSA. That’s a conscious decision to have a smaller number of members in exchange for more vetting. One easy way to help your socialist party grow is to not require interviews.
They do that to keep cops, reactionaries, wreckers, and assholes out and to maintain ideological consistency, which is actually important if you want an effective party. A bigger party isn't necessarily a better one. (Note: This doesn't mean that the goal is to keep the party small. It means that the goal is to hold all members of the party to a consistent set of personal and ideological standards, which an org can't do if it's indiscriminate about who it lets in. See: landlords in DSA. [Not that I'm even anti-DSA per se.]) Again, this is what historically successful parties have done. Doing away with ideological standards is not a shortcut to communism.
It absolutely will in a country as right wing as the U.S.
How? By what process? Europe is absolutely no closer to revolution now that they have universal healthcare programs.
They do that to keep cops, reactionaries, wreckers, and assholes out and to maintain ideological consistency, which is actually important if you want an effective party.
Yes, it's a conscious decision to trade size for all of these benefits. But a party the size of the PSL is ineffective by default; they've struck the wrong balance.
How? By what process?
Demonstrating that mass collective action can produce material improvements could catalyze bigger changes in the same direction. There's also the idea that taking the boot off the neck of workers, at least a little bit, can make non-electoral strategies easier.
Generally speaking, big parties start out as small ones. The CPC started with 50 members. Those are the building blocks.
And you can demean parties for having ideological standards all you want, but liberals will never accomplish our goals. We either get actual socialism or we all boil alive from climate change. Medicare For All isn't gonna cut it.
But we've tried the small party thing for decades now. It hasn't worked, and it hasn't produced much of anything. It didn't even get large numbers of people talking about socialism, which is a significant step in a country so diametrically opposed to it. The Bernie campaigns at least did that, and at least generated some concrete policy proposals you can bring up and get taken seriously.
Medicare for All isn't going to cut it, but that's not the end goal. That's an immediate goal, and building a mass movement around that might offer a path to bigger goals.
Nobody is consciously setting out to keep their parties small.
Nothing's worked in the US, and "small parties" isn't a strategy; the question should be how to make socialist parties bigger, because that's the only thing that's worked anywhere in history, and it's worked for entire countries.
Building a mass movement around a liberal reform that most of the world already has won't bring us even remotely closer to achieving socialism.
The PSL, for instance, has a higher bar to entry than the DSA. That's a conscious decision to have a smaller number of members in exchange for more vetting. One easy way to help your socialist party grow is to not require interviews.
It absolutely will in a country as right wing as the U.S.
They do that to keep cops, reactionaries, wreckers, and assholes out and to maintain ideological consistency, which is actually important if you want an effective party. A bigger party isn't necessarily a better one. (Note: This doesn't mean that the goal is to keep the party small. It means that the goal is to hold all members of the party to a consistent set of personal and ideological standards, which an org can't do if it's indiscriminate about who it lets in. See: landlords in DSA. [Not that I'm even anti-DSA per se.]) Again, this is what historically successful parties have done. Doing away with ideological standards is not a shortcut to communism.
How? By what process? Europe is absolutely no closer to revolution now that they have universal healthcare programs.
Yes, it's a conscious decision to trade size for all of these benefits. But a party the size of the PSL is ineffective by default; they've struck the wrong balance.
Demonstrating that mass collective action can produce material improvements could catalyze bigger changes in the same direction. There's also the idea that taking the boot off the neck of workers, at least a little bit, can make non-electoral strategies easier.