"We applaud the democratic revolutions that have transformed the former Communist bloc"
I love the rising wave of neo-fascism in eastern europe - National DSA
(many DSA chapters are good and based ok, this post is dunking on the National DSA, not all chapters or the DSA on its entirety)
DSA members say "we just want Scandinavia" too, and terminally-online leftists rip that as much as they rip this. The answer doesn't really matter because the vast majority of Americans don't care about the USSR. It's a talking point you need to disarm, not a detailed discussion people are itching to have.
I'm curious what happens long term when you try to actually implement or push for actual communist policies and you've been repeating USA state dept talking points about the USSR and other similar experiments for so long people are reticent to change. Seems like the ground work for moving past red scare propaganda is better education not appropriating talking points that were designed to undermine our policies.
Me tying the noose this is fine
Me handing the noise to the hangman this is still fine
Me stepping off the platform We made the right decision
It's a pipeline, and DSA isn't the full extent of the pipeline. If they get libs and apolitical folks to take a few steps left, those people will find other leftist ideas -- including analyses of the Cold War that are much more favorable to the USSR and similar experiments. It's far more important right now, with how small the American left is, to get mass numbers of people into that pipeline in the first place.
i'm concerned that it will just end up being a :maybe-later-kiddo: but "socialist." If the dsa gets big enough and ultimately becomes corrupted by recuperation if it gets to big to be dealt with the old fashioned way, i.e. what they did to strikers in the early iww and the bpp party.
deleted by creator
That's a legitimate concern, but considering how many Bernie supporters wound up sprinting left in the wake of his campaign, I think it's far from a foregone conclusion.
maybe, but I think there's also historical reasons, particular in america, to be hypervigilant about this. Petite-bourgeois privilege has been an alluring and undermining power to (especially white-led) socialist movements in america and has successful derailed them when raw power didn't (or was being used on poc instead).
It just seems like there's way to onboard people without setting yourself up for more work down the road, and it also seems especially dubious to use that kind of red scare rhetoric if you're thinking "down the line we'll be able to come back around to this." seem like it would have been better to just say nothing at all.
Also tangentially related but I think it's fine for some people to not see the dsa platform as aligning with their politics and criticize it for that. We don't admonish anarchists for not agreeing 100% with ML positions and vice versa, just bc the dsa is big doesn't mean we should have to capitulate to it. It's the same energy as democrats doing "blue no matter who" or setting their candidates up as the most pragmatic even tho they're full of compromises.
edit: also I don't necessarily think bernie supporters are really indicative of how a larger mass of people would operate. Seems more like wish fulfillment than material. I think the berniecrats that ended up going super far left are mostly a particular type of group and I can't imagine they make up most of the broader left in the us. I don't think most people will naturally find their way more left if we're repeating propaganda that would work to keep them intellectually uncurious about
If there's a better way to onboard people in mass numbers, no one else has found it. It's fine to discuss alternate ideas, but we can't assume that a superior approach definitely exists. And we may never need to address any of this down the road -- we're talking about governments that have not existed for decades.
And you can't say nothing at all, because you have to have some response to the #1 reactionary talking point.
So most people will be satisfied with the bare minimum answer, which was given and has been given by orgs distancing themselves from the ussr and authoritarian communism or whataver for decades now. By the most popular politician in the country who's retoric was exactly what you say the dsa needs to focus on as a first step in building a mass movement. The point is that they chose to go above and beyond with anti-communist lies without even being asked to and in a question that has been asked and answered a million times with just political bullshit. Jumping at the chance of Propagating and regurgitating anti-communist talking points while pretending that thats a compromised answer you had to give and not something that represents actual core characteristics of larg parts of the org but also saying "this is open tent and its a conversation for later" isnt at all convincing. I attack it as something that shows the the anti-communist brainworms that are rotting big parts of the dsa and the american organized left, i dont consider this as pretending to be anti-communist and give that answer cause its the only prgamatic thing (again this isnt even true, could have been way better) but as actualy outlining what they think the basic beliefs of the org is and should be
Bernie focused almost entirely on domestic policies. When he did defend a socialist state even in the tamest possible way -- saying that Cuba had good healthcare and education -- he got roasted for a week in the middle of a tight primary race.
Their answer is basically what you'd hear in an 8th-grade history class; it's far from "above and beyond."
and the dsa at large isnt ?
and literally took zero hit in the polls around that time or lost noticable support due to that. Something that was 1000% more pushed in the media than if the DSA toned down the anticommunism in simmilar answers. Also did you read anywhere me saying that the dsa should have been positive about the ussr actualy ?
which is above and beyond when you literally arent asked to sing a joyfull memoriam for the fall of communism
It was a week and in the middle of a rapidly-changing primary -- polling isn't going to say anything useful about that. But we know that propaganda works, and that his Cuba comment earned him a ton of critical propaganda, and that his support was ultimately revealed to not be firmly entrenched.
How do you think they should answer the #1 anticommunist talking point, if not in the way they did?
This can be either demsoc believing this or power level hiding
"It doesn't discredit it cause first of all socialism doesn't mean the Soviet system . It has a huge history with dozens schools of thought with dem socialism being one that always critiqued the USSR, existed before it and had nothing to do with the way that system was set up and run. The reasons the Soviet system collapsed have nothing to do our socialist policy positions of freehealthcare, racial and economic justice, equality and democracy in the workplace, things that democratic socialism always stood for and attacked the USSR for not having by the way
If a completely different system in a completely different country and conditions collapsed for much different reasons would that mean that we should stop our struggle for those goals I mentioned"
That would be an improvement over the DSA's current answer, but it still doesn't make their approach bad. They're basically punting on a topic most people don't care about anyway.
On one hand I think, there is a danger inherently in that (document) position, on the other - comrades already piling on unfairly I think, dsa is non-marxist non-centralized organization, still better than nothing. Fighting dead general wars is less productive than participating in dsa :shrug-outta-hecks: