It's not ideologically based, it's materially based in the fact that the DSA has the people power right now. I agree with you that PSL has the more sound principles, but that's pointless without anyone to actually execute them.
The DSA is extremely flawed though (their focus on Democratic Socialism being one), but I would say that right now there is a good reason to encourage people in their direction. I would not necessarily say that PSL is a bad option, by any means though.
This is why some of us are suggesting that we intervene now before they get too big to change course. There is still an opening.
although the attacks in your OP
Not my attacks. My criticisms are of a different nature.
DSA fundamentally offers no anti-capitalist future.
As it currently exists, yes. I think that there is an opportunity to change the fundamentals of the DSA now (probably not on the national level, but there are comrades at the branch level for sure) while they are still "small". If it doesn't happen soon, then the Marxists membership of the DSA should figure out among themselves what to do next. I am in full agreement that the PSL is going to be more effective as it's currently organized.
Yeah. I keep spamming my more detailed thoughts on this position, so please bring more criticisms in the comments of that if you want. I like that I can tell my "socialish" friends who want to "actually do something" beyond voting to go to the same place that I'm involved in. They get an educational opportunity being around the various tendencies and working groups, and hopefully I can contribute to steering the branch in the right direction.
I'd never suggest someone do one thing or the other over PSL or any left-group (I disagree with our comrade above who opened the conversation with "DSA>PSL"). If someone has their mind set on something, I'm all for it! This is all regionally based anyway, unfortunately. Different groups are going to be more effective (or existent) in different areas). If someone is looking for an opinion on where to spend their time, however, I have one!
As soon as the DSA is big enough to meaningfully affect the American political decision making processes, it, like any other democratic socialist party in history, will seek compromise with capital.
The DSA is not a party, and it's not even gonna get to the point where it can seriously threaten the system probably (although it wasn't EVERY democratic socialist party that compromised, see Allende or Chavez, more like succ parties, which granted, the DSA would be if it was a party). But that doesn't mean there is no point in organising with them and them growing in size. We must always take into account the current situation and what the vast majority of people can stomach. When people have reached a certain level of consciousness and class struggle reaches a level of sophistication, then we can talk about revolutionary parties threatening the system etc, and then we can discuss if x organisation is gonna fold and compromise etc. I believe that for the US the DSA is the best bet for something slightly more "centralised" (although the most important thing is workplace, college, community organising), and it's definitely useful for actual socialists to have a say in what is going on in there.
A revolutionary party is not something you set up and make. It is the result of a long process that comes about when class struggle has reached a very high level. You mentioned the Bolsheviks. Well, the Bolsheviks didn't come about until very late, they were all part of other parties and coalitions up to that point.
It's not ideologically based, it's materially based in the fact that the DSA has the people power right now. I agree with you that PSL has the more sound principles, but that's pointless without anyone to actually execute them.
The DSA is extremely flawed though (their focus on Democratic Socialism being one), but I would say that right now there is a good reason to encourage people in their direction. I would not necessarily say that PSL is a bad option, by any means though.
deleted by creator
This is why some of us are suggesting that we intervene now before they get too big to change course. There is still an opening.
Not my attacks. My criticisms are of a different nature.
As it currently exists, yes. I think that there is an opportunity to change the fundamentals of the DSA now (probably not on the national level, but there are comrades at the branch level for sure) while they are still "small". If it doesn't happen soon, then the Marxists membership of the DSA should figure out among themselves what to do next. I am in full agreement that the PSL is going to be more effective as it's currently organized.
deleted by creator
Yeah. I keep spamming my more detailed thoughts on this position, so please bring more criticisms in the comments of that if you want. I like that I can tell my "socialish" friends who want to "actually do something" beyond voting to go to the same place that I'm involved in. They get an educational opportunity being around the various tendencies and working groups, and hopefully I can contribute to steering the branch in the right direction.
I'd never suggest someone do one thing or the other over PSL or any left-group (I disagree with our comrade above who opened the conversation with "DSA>PSL"). If someone has their mind set on something, I'm all for it! This is all regionally based anyway, unfortunately. Different groups are going to be more effective (or existent) in different areas). If someone is looking for an opinion on where to spend their time, however, I have one!
The DSA is not a party, and it's not even gonna get to the point where it can seriously threaten the system probably (although it wasn't EVERY democratic socialist party that compromised, see Allende or Chavez, more like succ parties, which granted, the DSA would be if it was a party). But that doesn't mean there is no point in organising with them and them growing in size. We must always take into account the current situation and what the vast majority of people can stomach. When people have reached a certain level of consciousness and class struggle reaches a level of sophistication, then we can talk about revolutionary parties threatening the system etc, and then we can discuss if x organisation is gonna fold and compromise etc. I believe that for the US the DSA is the best bet for something slightly more "centralised" (although the most important thing is workplace, college, community organising), and it's definitely useful for actual socialists to have a say in what is going on in there.
A revolutionary party is not something you set up and make. It is the result of a long process that comes about when class struggle has reached a very high level. You mentioned the Bolsheviks. Well, the Bolsheviks didn't come about until very late, they were all part of other parties and coalitions up to that point.