Happy to say ive heard lots of great things from comrades who were there who include several NPC members.
https://twitter.com/NicolasMaduro/status/1411121788701052933
https://twitter.com/Gaius_Gracchus_/status/1411129317208244224
https://twitter.com/nicolasmaduro/status/1411150426049810434
:maduro-coffee:
I mean probably, but also they seemingly don't make up some major force. I like this comment though
I am not saying no one criticized DSA, but I don't understand the attitude that this is a dunk on a massive or vocal subset of people here. People who have been shocked have been called out and deleted their comments, so its not like this is some major contingent, or at least one that would take them meeting as reason to reverse whatever stance they boxed themselves into. Like I said, someone who wants to hate DSA will just say that the CPC met with CPUSA recently.
Anyone who is dunked on is either those people here who are ignorant and deleted their comments after being informed, OR they are ultras who care more about bitching about DSA all the time and it wont matter to them either way. That's what I am saying, the two types no better now and are willing to change, or are those aholes we all know on twitter who respond to every DSA tweet with vitriol. The dunking just seems more like self aggrandizing spite than anything. No one is standing by their "DSA is social imperialist, how could they go to meet Maduro!?!" stance here if they had it. I don't like that the response to something good is envisioning someone to get mad at.
I should have clarified that better, but hey you engaged in good faith so thanks. that's different
This is from three days ago. Plenty of people are still beating the "social imperialist" drum.
There's plenty of room for criticism of the DSA, but that criticism shouldn't be selective or done in bad faith.
All I'm seeing is perfectly legitimate criticism of AOC
Good faith criticism doesn't zero in on the bad and frame it in the worst possible light. It places a bad statement/act in context of whatever else the person says/does on the topic, and it considers that some bad things may be due to ignorance or mistake instead of the person being shitty.
Take a look at some of AOC's other comments on imperialism, colonialism, and foreign policy. In that context, harping on her "deferred to caucus leadership" comment is blatantly misleading. It's the type of slant-by-omission you'd expect to see from someone running a smear campaign, not someone making a good-faith criticism. Clearly her views are more complicated than a blanket support of imperialism, and criticism should reflect that.
Yeah but that was specifically on her talking about Tibet. I get that she is generally better than that, but not every critique needs to be couched in caveats
If it had been limited to her comments on Tibet, I would agree with you. But it brought up Venezuela, too.
If someone brings up a vague statement on Venezuela, frames it as damning, and omits a half-dozen clearer, much better statements on the topic, that's bad-faith criticism.
Sure, amidst good faith and warranted critiques. If something about Venezuela slips through into that, then I think the larger problem is with how statements like the Tibet one feed conscious and unconscious assumptions about the org. It confirms a bad faith read on Venezuela, because that negativity was vindicated with Tibet. I dont have an answer for that, nor would I say it is good; but it certainly is a problem and I get why it happens
bourgeois transparency 👁️
You're never going to get labor aristocrat Karens to do historical materialism, that would require reckoning with their material reality and not their idealist delusions.
she glows in the dark, but the light is very complicated patterns!
That was some blatant bait, the Tibet thing was a while back no reason someone would repost it in earnest right now. But also AOC is not DSA. I wouldn't criticize people for praising this meeting and also condemning AOC for what she said. I would argue it would be bad faith to conflate criticism based on ignorance or essentializing the entire org with criticizing a specific statement/politician. Bafflement over DSA meeting with Maduro and disliking what AOC said are not mutually inclusive
AOC is easily the most high-profile member of the DSA. I get that she doesn't speak for the organization, but it's not hard to see the parallels between how she's viewed on the left and how the DSA is viewed.
100%, which is why it is fair to criticize comments like hers. If her views parallel those of DSA even just in public opinion, then those views that are bad are all the more important to oppose. Even then I don't think too many people would suggest in earnest that DSA broadly agrees with her on Tibet, but maybe that's putting too much faith in folks
User named after Marx is offended that people point out CIA imperialism manufacturing consent for genocide. Sounds about white!
radlib justifications https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/liberals/lectureporn-the-vulgar-art-of-liberal-narcissism/
By upbears probably, but we have some of them, dunk doesn’t imply that’s significant majority or major subset, just that such people exist :meow-floppy:
Like honestly biggest problem of socdems always been imperialism, if dsa is going so far out of the way to be different - good for them, they are nice cuddly socdems instead of m4a and chill kind imperialist ones.
dsa frequently catch strays of “objective wing” from euro socdem history and current shenanigans :sadness: so they can have some fun now :comfy-cool:
I am very glad they are doing this, and the IC had been based as fuck for a long time. I am hesitant with how everything involving them becomes a binary issue for the left. I've seem dedicated members get shit here for having nuanced critiques of their own org. They've always had channels open with PSUV, but the national caucus and plenty of actions have been frustratingly socdem particularly with imperialism. I want to celebrate this happening, while also not wanting to treat this as being indicative of DSA writ-large because when push-comes to shove the IC does not dictate the direction of the party and the national org needs to be challenged on foreign policy regardless of good things like this.
What I am saying is the International Caucus should coup the entire org
I dont expect you to know this because its not exactly public knowledge, but the International Committee is directly appointed by the National Political Committee which is the highest elected administrative body in DSA, elected by a convention of thousands of delegates from every chapter once every 2 years. The NPC appoints the leadership of the IC, and the NPC has to approve all the things the IC decides to do. So this IS national doing this, and the majority of the delegation that met with Maduro are NPC members and appointed IC leadership, that second post from Austin for example is one of the elected NPCs. This is as "national" as it gets ha
Gimme those details plz?
but yeah thanks that's cool to have clarified (I did know it was chosen by a national convention was all) however its not like the IC and the official line are the same. National level or not the IC is certainly more radical than the NPC. I am assuming they don't have the power to rescind endorsements or as easily pressure candidates to take their line? Cause that's what I was (half-jokingly) getting at. How much policy power does the International Committee have, cause we know how easily something like the UN can get away with a progressive resolution being passed, or a committee that is more radical only for any and all suggestions to be ignored.
Well for one thing we have BDS basically as a policy platform now which different chapters use to determine endorsements from, and for example all the NYC state and local reps and candidates support it. And we are taking up voting on a party platform this year, which includes a lot of things, you can read the draft here if curious. This sort of builds our general policies which individual chapters take up to make their endorsements process, but this differs a lot from state to state or region to region because of a lot of local factors that chapters will have to decide. There cant really be a single thing we can apply to everyone, tho theres ways to move towards that. The IC in that regard I think has made a lot of inroads in determining our foreign policy platform which is pretty great and the work done there is good too. What that's important for is building internal political ideology which is more impactful on what chapters decide to take up in regards to different policy matters for candidates. But yeah basically the political makeup of our candidates is more indicative of the state of the left and the us in general than DSA itself.
Nice to hear, specifically about BDS. Always a work in progress, but the IC is giving me faith. Is there any way to specifically help the IC and their work?
Yeah I think theres a lot of stuff about DSA in general thats not so obvious unless youre actually in it working on this stuff. If youre in DSA you should apply to join the IC and theres several subcommittees you can join depending on what you're interested in.
Thanks for the info
That’s fair with nuance, but I think natural ebb and flow of “this is shit, they are all bad, this is rad, they are all good” are just consequences of talking about single event, and kinda fair game (or at least natural structural consequence)
Re: last point :sankara-shining: