Your entryism is doomed to failure and co-option. Form an actual Marxist party with an explicitly Marxist platform and run candidates on it and you'll cease to be liberals. Until then.... Libs, libs, libs, libs.
Democrats do not give a shit, you are play acting at having a real party. Again. Come back to me when you do. Until then you're just propping up the Democrats and the ignorant and false notion that entryism into the Democratic party is a viable way forward for socialism instead of a path to failure and being co-opted and watered down and one secretly enjoyed and appreciated by the ruling class as a way to contain and neuter the power of the working class.
Kicking someone out of your party doesn't mean they'll be kicked out of office. Come back when that is accomplished and I'll at least admit you have some power. But the fact is this person I would assume ran with a D next to their name, the Democrats are fine with them continuing to run with a D next to their name and may even provide significant support for them next time. They have the incumbency advantage. So again. This is feel good stuff for the membership. If they can stay in power next election then more opportunists will come and lie to the DSA about supporting their values, get their free get out the vote campaigning then defect to a cushy life as a normal Democrat. And not being an actual party with endorsement power they have nothing they can use to prevent this.
B&R is Bread and Roses, a Marxist caucus in DSA. R&R is Reform and Revolution, another Marxist Caucus in DSA. B&R is the one of the largest and well organized caucuses, with 15 percent of the delegates at the last YDSA convention. No clue about what neo-kautskyite failures they are talking about. R&R and B&R have a lot of member (or at least supporter) overlap, and both really like Rosa Luxemburg.
B&R is a broadly DemSoc (with Marxist leanings) caucus if I recall, who still hold out that an electorial path is possible. Their Allende-like approach is probably what is being called Kautskyite here.
It directly identifies as a caucus of strictly Marxist organizers. They also iirc don't hold out that an electoral path is possible, but that a simultaneous investment in elections combined with militant radical rank and file labor organizing is necessary. I know there are revolutionary socialists on their national leadership. Yeah looking at their docs, they outright say winning elections is not taking power, merely a necessary step along the way to power. They're coy with it, but they clearly endorse a mass militant labor movement as a final protective step but yeah that endorsement of elections in a pretty direct way is what they're most likely calling Kautskyite.
That makes sense. It is still kind of silly that the DSA has like 6 different Marxist Caucuses. Like why is R&R and B&R even separate if they are both revolutionary?
I'm aware, I've read kautsky (including lars lih work on Lenin and kautsky). I read the call. I just disagree on calling those things neo-kautskyite. I'd also say I disagree with the characterization of B&R trying to control what the revolution is, rather I see it as setting up as many favorable conditions as possible than an endorsement to one view of it.
I should also say here while I'm not a member of B&R, I have attended their trainings, and am friends with multiple members that have written for the call.
Yes, they constantly are trying to get members into jobs to form radical unions, or into positions to take over and radicalized existing ones. Read anything they publish about those efforts. Oh you're talking about r and r, no clue. I mainly follow b and r.
R&R name is definitely a play on Rosa's text, playing up that both have to occur though.
How exactly does forming your own party for local politics purposes actually matter. City councils are small, and "DSA" is already a meaningful political party coalition in the minds of most big city voters in the US.
The democrat thing is nothing more than using their ballot line to prevent yourself from being outflanked by the center left in a higher turnout general election.
Libs.
Your entryism is doomed to failure and co-option. Form an actual Marxist party with an explicitly Marxist platform and run candidates on it and you'll cease to be liberals. Until then.... Libs, libs, libs, libs.
Democrats do not give a shit, you are play acting at having a real party. Again. Come back to me when you do. Until then you're just propping up the Democrats and the ignorant and false notion that entryism into the Democratic party is a viable way forward for socialism instead of a path to failure and being co-opted and watered down and one secretly enjoyed and appreciated by the ruling class as a way to contain and neuter the power of the working class.
Kicking someone out of your party doesn't mean they'll be kicked out of office. Come back when that is accomplished and I'll at least admit you have some power. But the fact is this person I would assume ran with a D next to their name, the Democrats are fine with them continuing to run with a D next to their name and may even provide significant support for them next time. They have the incumbency advantage. So again. This is feel good stuff for the membership. If they can stay in power next election then more opportunists will come and lie to the DSA about supporting their values, get their free get out the vote campaigning then defect to a cushy life as a normal Democrat. And not being an actual party with endorsement power they have nothing they can use to prevent this.
deleted by creator
What's R&R and B&R?
B&R is Bread and Roses, a Marxist caucus in DSA. R&R is Reform and Revolution, another Marxist Caucus in DSA. B&R is the one of the largest and well organized caucuses, with 15 percent of the delegates at the last YDSA convention. No clue about what neo-kautskyite failures they are talking about. R&R and B&R have a lot of member (or at least supporter) overlap, and both really like Rosa Luxemburg.
B&R is a broadly DemSoc (with Marxist leanings) caucus if I recall, who still hold out that an electorial path is possible. Their Allende-like approach is probably what is being called Kautskyite here.
R&R is more explicitly revolutionary.
It directly identifies as a caucus of strictly Marxist organizers. They also iirc don't hold out that an electoral path is possible, but that a simultaneous investment in elections combined with militant radical rank and file labor organizing is necessary. I know there are revolutionary socialists on their national leadership. Yeah looking at their docs, they outright say winning elections is not taking power, merely a necessary step along the way to power. They're coy with it, but they clearly endorse a mass militant labor movement as a final protective step but yeah that endorsement of elections in a pretty direct way is what they're most likely calling Kautskyite.
That makes sense. It is still kind of silly that the DSA has like 6 different Marxist Caucuses. Like why is R&R and B&R even separate if they are both revolutionary?
They're leftists
Lobsterfight.jpg
Wow there's no lobster emotes, or leftist infighting emotes, this will not stand.
🦞
deleted by creator
I'm aware, I've read kautsky (including lars lih work on Lenin and kautsky). I read the call. I just disagree on calling those things neo-kautskyite. I'd also say I disagree with the characterization of B&R trying to control what the revolution is, rather I see it as setting up as many favorable conditions as possible than an endorsement to one view of it.
I should also say here while I'm not a member of B&R, I have attended their trainings, and am friends with multiple members that have written for the call.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes, they constantly are trying to get members into jobs to form radical unions, or into positions to take over and radicalized existing ones. Read anything they publish about those efforts. Oh you're talking about r and r, no clue. I mainly follow b and r.
R&R name is definitely a play on Rosa's text, playing up that both have to occur though.
How exactly does forming your own party for local politics purposes actually matter. City councils are small, and "DSA" is already a meaningful political party coalition in the minds of most big city voters in the US.
The democrat thing is nothing more than using their ballot line to prevent yourself from being outflanked by the center left in a higher turnout general election.
How to get owned as an ultra who fails to take into account the society around them 101