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.
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.