Edit- y’all are getting salty. Clearly I agree with Lenin that revolutionaries should work in reactionary parliaments. But that is not the same as the DSA who think electoralism is the key to meaningful change, and not a combination of legal and illegal strategies.
I'm once again begging you to actually read my comments before soapboxing against things I'm not even saying.
I'm not saying that telling people to :vote: is the good part of the DSA. It's not. I'm not an electoralist, I don't find it a useful vehicle for material change. However, there ARE good parts of the DSA where many localities have book clubs that participate in education revolutionary theory, organize labor, and perform direct action against the state.
You also just linked something from 1920, which was written by someone who had to learn throughout his life through his own experience that electoral reform is a dead end, yet shit on people going through that on their own.
How will libs move further left if the organization overall wants soc dem style reforms? If the leadership is full of libs, how will that not effect the actions of the group as a whole? If it is not centralized and chapters/localities are doing things on their own, won’t that lead to individualism and idealism , and a dissolutions to how the masses can come together and agitate for change?
And if I linked to a book someone wrote about in the past struggles with bourgeois parliaments, why should people need to go through this struggle on their own? Read theory and see how past revolutions and revolutionary experiences have worked and how they relate to us today. If it wasn’t relevant, it would have been lost to time and chastised by other communists. But Lenin don’t miss. :lenin-shining: