Expelling Bowman would mean handing the perfect tool to the establishment to stoke divisions within the Palestine solidarity movement, the left and the working class, and play into the strategy of divide and conquer. It is exactly what our enemies want.
Because DSA recognizes that they don't actually have the power to hold any of "their" politicians to account. For someone who is already in office, that's not much of a threat. Expulsion from the DSA would have no impact on their holding a seat, because they aren't subject to a party list system of any sort. At the end of the day, the DSA's only actual leverage is their endorsement, and it isn't a particularly effective lever. The problem is in the entrepreneurial relationship between party and legislator that FPTP democracies with a weak-party model create. It's important to understand that there is structure to the DSA's weakness - it isn't just born of foolishness.
Yeah Bowman's endorsement was basically a rush job 3 weeks before his election. Paid off massively in PR until the the past month. IMO the NPC made the tough but correct position. Expulsion is not a punishment any more un-endorsement is in terms of DSA affecting Bowman's campaign, and expelling right now could have made building a stronger party more difficult in the near term (don't totally buy that, but it's not unreasonable, enough for me to be okay with the decision).
What's going to happen is that the national electoral committee is not going to endorse any federal office candidate who doesn't hit the platform points again (rightfully). This is the first time a real burn has happened with the federal reps, everyone knew this was going to happen eventually. It's the reason every chapter is now copying NYC DSA's endorsement questionnaire practice more diligently.
Oh, I know. But if there's ever going to be a socialist movement in the USA, a strong disciplined org is needed that can and will ruin the lives of any rep that goes against the line, either in electoral or direct work. Otherwise, we may as well embrace Third-Worldism and ask Xi to launch the nukes already.
Not DemCent, per se, but at least UK Labour if not AU Labor levels of discipline. I know that's harder without a party list. But there are other means, like having masses of protesters haunt their every waking moment.
Can the DSA be built up to this level, and if not...what good is it if the reps it endorses openly flout it's political positions without consequence?
This was a tough call in part because Bowman held these positions before DSA endorsed him, not after. It's not like DSA endorsed him and he swung right after getting in office. That raises the question of "why did they endorse in the first place", which - fair question.
It's also true that Bowman's view on this issue is the same as that of Bernie Sanders, whom DSA made their chief electoral priority last cycle. Expelling Bowman for having the same position would raise questions of a racial double standard.
I'm not saying this was the right decision; I was originally pro-expulsion but after talking to comrades in my org who opposed it I came to at least respect the viewpoint. It's not just lib shit / caping.
Definitely hope DSA pulls an endorsement though. I don't want dues going towards his campaign when there are better candidates in tougher electoral campaigns out there plus plenty of non-electoral work to do. I care a lot more about pulling financial support than expulsion.
No dues have ever gone to any political campaign actually technically (staff time may get some liason assigned, but we can't give campaigns money). In fact we can't spend more than 40 percent of our budget on anything electoral or the feds shut us down for violating the 501 c 3 laws.
Yeah I'm torn. DSA is essentially working to make socdem demands as a theory of change that helping workers win demands will illuminate the promise of uniting as workers. It's kind of undeniable that expelling Bowman (and theoretically Bernie for not publicly endorsing BDS, eventually AOC for her 'present' vote) will weaken the left as an entity in DC. I guess the question comes down to "what is the point of DC politics" which I'm still trying to answer myself.
But honestly I don't have any faith in PSL as an alternative 'more radical' option to be the most influential left org in the US. I would prefer to have DSA be an imperfect 'big tent' :visible-disgust: org that primarily helps unions through solidarity campaigns, but also pushes for things like the PRO act, M4A etc. I can't help but think this is the only option we have, considering how awfully organized & class conscious the US working class is. In other words, I think DSA is only as powerful as the working class, which is to say NOT powerful. We're at a stage where the demands we're able to make through the org are extremely limited by this. This is what I think when people criticize DSA for making cringe moves. This is all we can do right now, and I think we should be careful about squandering the little power we do have.
There was a very interesting thread on Twitter about similar issues Lula faced in Brazil, I'll link if I find it. Online lefties are typically extremely pro-Lula, but people seem to not understand how much awful right-wing coalition building he did. And he did so to stay in power, to extract wins for the working class. So it seems hypocritical to criticize DSA and be uncritically pro-Lula. If you're one of these people, please share why I'm wrong. :lula-bars:
So yeah, all this to say I have no idea where I stand. I'm also not super clued in. But I think not expelling, instead not re-endorsing is an acceptable move.
EDIT: I swing hard between Bernstein and Lenin on a daily basis, please don't crucify me too hard for my right-wing take today. BDS forever of course, liberate Palestine in our lifetime :palestine-strong:
I think Lenin would define the DSA as a Bourgois Workers Party(notparty) like UK Labour in 1900. Worth supporting, but only if communists have full political freedom to agitate about its weaknesses from inside.
Yeah I think you're right on the first point. Lenin taught me so much, but I still struggle with how much to / how much not to apply Lenin to our own context.
I used to read Lenin and go "haha he's talking about DSA cucks" but that changed when I actually started doing DSA organizing work. I'm under no illusion that "DSA can establish communism" or whatever, but in my city and my situation, we are organized in doing great and valuable labor solidarity work as well as political education. And I find that lots of online leftist's takeaways are that "lol you're in DSA but Lenin said you're a cuck" but I found that to be an incredibly demobilizing sentiment personally. I'm happy staying kinda ideologically agnostic on this because I've directly seen how useful DSA can be for labor.
I don't agree with you that DSA is only useful because communists have freedom to agitate. Considering how weak the working class is currently it seems a bit like a destructive ultra left position to me. And I struggle to even picture what that would look like, there really hasn't been any moment in the discussion meetings I've attended where I've been like "actually DSA is doomed and we need to be Leninists." In fact many comrades would probably agree with the criticisms of its contradictions.
And also let's be real, if you're organizing labor, much of that labor will be American boomers. I'm really just interested in growing people's class consciousness and hoping to push people to learn about socialist labor politics OF ANY FORM really. Maybe that's besides the point idk.
Yes, we seem to forget that while left-wing orgs were around the same size in the 1890s-1900s, there was significantly more stochastic worker violence and unorganised labour action than we see, and unions were much stronger. The base was far more conscious.
We're getting to that point (for better or worse), but I agree that as long as you're willing to highlight weaknesses and contradictions in a DemSoc org, and where possible agitate for a more hard line stance you're doing ok.
Ehhh, what causes Manchins is being from a state that votes Republican by 50 points. Manchin votes like a conservative because literally a third of his voters are Trumpers.
In a sense, yes. The Democrats have no real power over Manchin's ability to get elected, so if they did want to bring him to heel, they couldn't. But they also don't want to, so it doesn't really matter that much that they can't bring him to heel. Now, the loose relationship between party and representative helped to create the structural elements of the party system that gives the Democratic elite the interests they have, so, in that sense, still yes. But, realistically, that's of minimal importance compared to understanding the historical material interests of the American elite of different periods and recognizing that their interests are what drive both parties. The entrepreneurial model of politics makes it easier for economic elites to control American politicians, but you don't need a system as thoroughly malformed as the American one to produce similar outcomes. PR governments with strong-party models have seen similar outcomes, if in less extreme forms.
Because DSA recognizes that they don't actually have the power to hold any of "their" politicians to account. For someone who is already in office, that's not much of a threat. Expulsion from the DSA would have no impact on their holding a seat, because they aren't subject to a party list system of any sort. At the end of the day, the DSA's only actual leverage is their endorsement, and it isn't a particularly effective lever. The problem is in the entrepreneurial relationship between party and legislator that FPTP democracies with a weak-party model create. It's important to understand that there is structure to the DSA's weakness - it isn't just born of foolishness.
Yeah Bowman's endorsement was basically a rush job 3 weeks before his election. Paid off massively in PR until the the past month. IMO the NPC made the tough but correct position. Expulsion is not a punishment any more un-endorsement is in terms of DSA affecting Bowman's campaign, and expelling right now could have made building a stronger party more difficult in the near term (don't totally buy that, but it's not unreasonable, enough for me to be okay with the decision).
What's going to happen is that the national electoral committee is not going to endorse any federal office candidate who doesn't hit the platform points again (rightfully). This is the first time a real burn has happened with the federal reps, everyone knew this was going to happen eventually. It's the reason every chapter is now copying NYC DSA's endorsement questionnaire practice more diligently.
Oh, I know. But if there's ever going to be a socialist movement in the USA, a strong disciplined org is needed that can and will ruin the lives of any rep that goes against the line, either in electoral or direct work. Otherwise, we may as well embrace Third-Worldism and ask Xi to launch the nukes already.
Not DemCent, per se, but at least UK Labour if not AU Labor levels of discipline. I know that's harder without a party list. But there are other means, like having masses of protesters haunt their every waking moment.
Can the DSA be built up to this level, and if not...what good is it if the reps it endorses openly flout it's political positions without consequence?
This was a tough call in part because Bowman held these positions before DSA endorsed him, not after. It's not like DSA endorsed him and he swung right after getting in office. That raises the question of "why did they endorse in the first place", which - fair question.
It's also true that Bowman's view on this issue is the same as that of Bernie Sanders, whom DSA made their chief electoral priority last cycle. Expelling Bowman for having the same position would raise questions of a racial double standard.
I'm not saying this was the right decision; I was originally pro-expulsion but after talking to comrades in my org who opposed it I came to at least respect the viewpoint. It's not just lib shit / caping.
Definitely hope DSA pulls an endorsement though. I don't want dues going towards his campaign when there are better candidates in tougher electoral campaigns out there plus plenty of non-electoral work to do. I care a lot more about pulling financial support than expulsion.
No dues have ever gone to any political campaign actually technically (staff time may get some liason assigned, but we can't give campaigns money). In fact we can't spend more than 40 percent of our budget on anything electoral or the feds shut us down for violating the 501 c 3 laws.
Thank you for telling me how that works, comrade.
He did say he did not support BDS, however he did retroactively flip flop in the initial endorsement regarding funding Israel.
Good points all. Not enough to change my position, but yes, I understand they're trying to thread a difficult needle.
Yeah I'm torn. DSA is essentially working to make socdem demands as a theory of change that helping workers win demands will illuminate the promise of uniting as workers. It's kind of undeniable that expelling Bowman (and theoretically Bernie for not publicly endorsing BDS, eventually AOC for her 'present' vote) will weaken the left as an entity in DC. I guess the question comes down to "what is the point of DC politics" which I'm still trying to answer myself.
But honestly I don't have any faith in PSL as an alternative 'more radical' option to be the most influential left org in the US. I would prefer to have DSA be an imperfect 'big tent' :visible-disgust: org that primarily helps unions through solidarity campaigns, but also pushes for things like the PRO act, M4A etc. I can't help but think this is the only option we have, considering how awfully organized & class conscious the US working class is. In other words, I think DSA is only as powerful as the working class, which is to say NOT powerful. We're at a stage where the demands we're able to make through the org are extremely limited by this. This is what I think when people criticize DSA for making cringe moves. This is all we can do right now, and I think we should be careful about squandering the little power we do have.
There was a very interesting thread on Twitter about similar issues Lula faced in Brazil, I'll link if I find it. Online lefties are typically extremely pro-Lula, but people seem to not understand how much awful right-wing coalition building he did. And he did so to stay in power, to extract wins for the working class. So it seems hypocritical to criticize DSA and be uncritically pro-Lula. If you're one of these people, please share why I'm wrong. :lula-bars:
So yeah, all this to say I have no idea where I stand. I'm also not super clued in. But I think not expelling, instead not re-endorsing is an acceptable move.
EDIT: I swing hard between Bernstein and Lenin on a daily basis, please don't crucify me too hard for my right-wing take today. BDS forever of course, liberate Palestine in our lifetime :palestine-strong:
I think Lenin would define the DSA as a Bourgois Workers Party(notparty) like UK Labour in 1900. Worth supporting, but only if communists have full political freedom to agitate about its weaknesses from inside.
Which we do.
Yeah I think you're right on the first point. Lenin taught me so much, but I still struggle with how much to / how much not to apply Lenin to our own context.
I used to read Lenin and go "haha he's talking about DSA cucks" but that changed when I actually started doing DSA organizing work. I'm under no illusion that "DSA can establish communism" or whatever, but in my city and my situation, we are organized in doing great and valuable labor solidarity work as well as political education. And I find that lots of online leftist's takeaways are that "lol you're in DSA but Lenin said you're a cuck" but I found that to be an incredibly demobilizing sentiment personally. I'm happy staying kinda ideologically agnostic on this because I've directly seen how useful DSA can be for labor.
I don't agree with you that DSA is only useful because communists have freedom to agitate. Considering how weak the working class is currently it seems a bit like a destructive ultra left position to me. And I struggle to even picture what that would look like, there really hasn't been any moment in the discussion meetings I've attended where I've been like "actually DSA is doomed and we need to be Leninists." In fact many comrades would probably agree with the criticisms of its contradictions.
And also let's be real, if you're organizing labor, much of that labor will be American boomers. I'm really just interested in growing people's class consciousness and hoping to push people to learn about socialist labor politics OF ANY FORM really. Maybe that's besides the point idk.
Yes, we seem to forget that while left-wing orgs were around the same size in the 1890s-1900s, there was significantly more stochastic worker violence and unorganised labour action than we see, and unions were much stronger. The base was far more conscious.
We're getting to that point (for better or worse), but I agree that as long as you're willing to highlight weaknesses and contradictions in a DemSoc org, and where possible agitate for a more hard line stance you're doing ok.
Yeah. Ultimately I think we're all disgusted by Bowman's actions, and it seems like a vast majority think it was a mistake to endorse him at all.
Out of curiosity are you a member / active in DSA? (Not a fed) :fedposting:
deleted by creator
Ehhh, what causes Manchins is being from a state that votes Republican by 50 points. Manchin votes like a conservative because literally a third of his voters are Trumpers.
In a sense, yes. The Democrats have no real power over Manchin's ability to get elected, so if they did want to bring him to heel, they couldn't. But they also don't want to, so it doesn't really matter that much that they can't bring him to heel. Now, the loose relationship between party and representative helped to create the structural elements of the party system that gives the Democratic elite the interests they have, so, in that sense, still yes. But, realistically, that's of minimal importance compared to understanding the historical material interests of the American elite of different periods and recognizing that their interests are what drive both parties. The entrepreneurial model of politics makes it easier for economic elites to control American politicians, but you don't need a system as thoroughly malformed as the American one to produce similar outcomes. PR governments with strong-party models have seen similar outcomes, if in less extreme forms.