Maybe then we can vote out capitalism. We will elect the best Democrats and they will pass a bill and the Bourgeoisie will say "yes sir thank you sir here are the means of production, you won fair and square :capitalist: "
oh right trying to have the largest socialist resurgence in the past century is actually a bad thing. try to actually engage honestly with things youre critical of 🙄
The DSA practically guaranteed split into a revolutionary party (or at least explicitly Marxist) and a reformist party at some point, and even a quarter of the membership siding with the revolutionaries would make it the largest revolutionary party to exist in America since WWII at the very least.
Tbh that's kind of a problem. A lack of discipline where one chapter can basically just be run entirely by wrecker liberals that focus 100% on elections and another that functions nearly like an ML org.
There's definitely too low of a barrier to entry imo, there needs to be more strictly established points of unity for DSA nationally, because liberal elements can have a detrimental effect. However, mass national engagement with socialism is gravely important and DSA has proven its highly capable of driving numbers. Radicalization and learning comes after normies get engaged, and that's part of growing the left in a country that's as ignorant as the US. Whether that means people join and then leave to join PSL or something its good either way and leads to national leftist growth.
The thing about DSA is that if your chapter is small, you can go in and take it over with a group of people or at least challenge leadership enough to change up the strategies and what not happening in that chapter. Its a matter of people getting engaged and getting others to join you and actually forming coalitions where you live. At the end of the day if you're doing something like running a food aid or organizing protests or campaigns for certain issues like housing it doesn't matter whether you're working with MLs or lib socs or soc dems, and it gives you a chance to actually meet people and change their views.
It's also very rare for chapters to only focus on elections anymore, theres tons of things you can get involved with in DSA now. There's certainly problems with leadership not being well organized but thats a problem with us all being new at all this and figuring out the best way to do any of this. It's all volunteers after all.
This is what vanguard parties do at the start and then then leadership will typically whip them in line when an actual opening at power comes about. Some of y'all really never read any history on actual movement-building or examined the historical context of the theory you read and it shows
Vanguard parties used to do that before they really figured out that the Leninist approach is the best way forward. That's kind of the point of scientific socialism. You try things and stop doing the things that don't work but keep doing the things that do.
I'd the DSA wasn't 90% liberals, trots and anarcho-whateverists then I guess I could see the point. I just don't see how you're supposed to build a significant movement in actual working class communities when different chapters and never have wildly different views. Like if your org is going around and propagandizing, it should probably have a disciplined line so they're consistent across all regions. You don't want to have a bunch of anarchists in one city preaching about unjust hierarchy and a bunch of MLs in another city talking about a vanguard. Big tent orgs with no vetting are also extremely easy to infiltrate and blow up. Without ideological unity, the contradictions can between opposing views can be played up to destroy the org from the inside.
You don’t want to have a bunch of anarchists in one city preaching about unjust hierarchy and a bunch of MLs in another city talking about a vanguard.
I mean if those are the conditions for those places how else are you supposed to do it? If theres a large presence of one group in one place and a large group in another that's just what will happen either way. But this isnt really how DSA works either way, specifically to avoid this very scenario of splintered off chapters. The chapters in order to become official have to undertake certain points of unity, no ones really going around using the chapter to preach their specific tendency or specific ideology. The work being done is less so ideological in that sense and more based on direct engagement with the local community based on issues that are actually important in those places. I agree it creates a sort of lack of ideological rigor since we don't push onto people the specifics of these ideas but rather use issues to gain mass support for a socialist movement. People can sort of go from there if they want to then join PSL or a caucus and concentrate on specific work. Its a general conduit for now seeing how underdeveloped the left really is in the US still.
I mean you don't have to organize in the DSA. If it's all that's there then I guess go for it. I just don't feel like 100,000 DSA members is going to change anything
DSA actually has a clause where if you belong to a demcent org and they think you're causing trouble, they can kick you out for no other reason than belonging to a demcent org.
There's talk about getting rid of it, and AFAIK it hasn't been used in a very long time, but, currently, it's still there.
Members can be expelled if they are found to be in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization or if they consistently engage in undemocratic, disruptive behavior or if they are under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization. Members facing expulsion must receive written notice of charges against them and must be given the opportunity to be heard before the NPC or a subcommittee thereof, appointed for the purpose of considering expulsion.
There's been talk among the NPC to remove this bylaw, which I hope happens cause its 100% leftover red scare shit. Also NPCs are literally telling people to just join other demcent orgs if they want, this hasn't really ever been enforced as far as I know. I think there was a trot group that got kicked out for doing something weird with a caucus but i forget the drama about it. PSL actually has the same sort of bylaw where you're not allowed to be part of ANY other socialist org, but i mean you still can lol
It was actually put in at the request of the New American Movement membership, and not the more anti-Communist Harrington-ite DSOC, because NAM had a lot of trouble with a run it or ruin it style attempt by a trotskyist party, iirc the FSP.
I know that Refoundation had a lot of trotskyist members, because the goal of the caucus was to try to turn the DSA into a labor party, either directly or indirectly. Don't know if there were any actual shenanigans, though.
Maybe then we can vote out capitalism. We will elect the best Democrats and they will pass a bill and the Bourgeoisie will say "yes sir thank you sir here are the means of production, you won fair and square :capitalist: "
oh right trying to have the largest socialist resurgence in the past century is actually a bad thing. try to actually engage honestly with things youre critical of 🙄
you arent gonna have it with the fucking DSA goddamnit
The DSA practically guaranteed split into a revolutionary party (or at least explicitly Marxist) and a reformist party at some point, and even a quarter of the membership siding with the revolutionaries would make it the largest revolutionary party to exist in America since WWII at the very least.
i mean you literally are when they have more members than all the other parties and groups combined
The cool thing is the DSA doesn't just engage in electoral politics, and chapters can vary!
Tbh that's kind of a problem. A lack of discipline where one chapter can basically just be run entirely by wrecker liberals that focus 100% on elections and another that functions nearly like an ML org.
There's definitely too low of a barrier to entry imo, there needs to be more strictly established points of unity for DSA nationally, because liberal elements can have a detrimental effect. However, mass national engagement with socialism is gravely important and DSA has proven its highly capable of driving numbers. Radicalization and learning comes after normies get engaged, and that's part of growing the left in a country that's as ignorant as the US. Whether that means people join and then leave to join PSL or something its good either way and leads to national leftist growth.
The thing about DSA is that if your chapter is small, you can go in and take it over with a group of people or at least challenge leadership enough to change up the strategies and what not happening in that chapter. Its a matter of people getting engaged and getting others to join you and actually forming coalitions where you live. At the end of the day if you're doing something like running a food aid or organizing protests or campaigns for certain issues like housing it doesn't matter whether you're working with MLs or lib socs or soc dems, and it gives you a chance to actually meet people and change their views.
It's also very rare for chapters to only focus on elections anymore, theres tons of things you can get involved with in DSA now. There's certainly problems with leadership not being well organized but thats a problem with us all being new at all this and figuring out the best way to do any of this. It's all volunteers after all.
This is what vanguard parties do at the start and then then leadership will typically whip them in line when an actual opening at power comes about. Some of y'all really never read any history on actual movement-building or examined the historical context of the theory you read and it shows
Vanguard parties used to do that before they really figured out that the Leninist approach is the best way forward. That's kind of the point of scientific socialism. You try things and stop doing the things that don't work but keep doing the things that do.
I'd the DSA wasn't 90% liberals, trots and anarcho-whateverists then I guess I could see the point. I just don't see how you're supposed to build a significant movement in actual working class communities when different chapters and never have wildly different views. Like if your org is going around and propagandizing, it should probably have a disciplined line so they're consistent across all regions. You don't want to have a bunch of anarchists in one city preaching about unjust hierarchy and a bunch of MLs in another city talking about a vanguard. Big tent orgs with no vetting are also extremely easy to infiltrate and blow up. Without ideological unity, the contradictions can between opposing views can be played up to destroy the org from the inside.
I mean if those are the conditions for those places how else are you supposed to do it? If theres a large presence of one group in one place and a large group in another that's just what will happen either way. But this isnt really how DSA works either way, specifically to avoid this very scenario of splintered off chapters. The chapters in order to become official have to undertake certain points of unity, no ones really going around using the chapter to preach their specific tendency or specific ideology. The work being done is less so ideological in that sense and more based on direct engagement with the local community based on issues that are actually important in those places. I agree it creates a sort of lack of ideological rigor since we don't push onto people the specifics of these ideas but rather use issues to gain mass support for a socialist movement. People can sort of go from there if they want to then join PSL or a caucus and concentrate on specific work. Its a general conduit for now seeing how underdeveloped the left really is in the US still.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I mean you don't have to organize in the DSA. If it's all that's there then I guess go for it. I just don't feel like 100,000 DSA members is going to change anything
deleted by creator
Do you...think that DSA is the only organization?
deleted by creator
DSA actually has a clause where if you belong to a demcent org and they think you're causing trouble, they can kick you out for no other reason than belonging to a demcent org.
There's talk about getting rid of it, and AFAIK it hasn't been used in a very long time, but, currently, it's still there.
Article I, section 3 of the bylaws:
There's been talk among the NPC to remove this bylaw, which I hope happens cause its 100% leftover red scare shit. Also NPCs are literally telling people to just join other demcent orgs if they want, this hasn't really ever been enforced as far as I know. I think there was a trot group that got kicked out for doing something weird with a caucus but i forget the drama about it. PSL actually has the same sort of bylaw where you're not allowed to be part of ANY other socialist org, but i mean you still can lol
It was actually put in at the request of the New American Movement membership, and not the more anti-Communist Harrington-ite DSOC, because NAM had a lot of trouble with a run it or ruin it style attempt by a trotskyist party, iirc the FSP.
I know that Refoundation had a lot of trotskyist members, because the goal of the caucus was to try to turn the DSA into a labor party, either directly or indirectly. Don't know if there were any actual shenanigans, though.
Y tho
deleted by creator
Are you describing a DSA meeting
Finally, THIS is the kinda struggle sesh I log into chapo chat dot com for.