With the membership approaching 100k, and with the structure of the organization being democratic and up for revision given a strong enough push from the internal caucuses, why are there still unaffiliated american socialists?
 I think the predominate view on this website is that DSA is a monolithic organization that is simply full of radlibs and social democrats or democratic socialists, however the richness of the caucuses and the amount of local marxist caucuses which are attempting to reform the DSA is in my opinion largely ignored here.
 The Democratic Socialists of America is *our* organization as socialists of america and if you critique it without affiliating yourself and without acting to change it, than what are you truly doing? It is definitely one of the twelve types of liberalism for you criticize in private but not to the collective itself. Problems you have with the DSA from your critical perspective should be brought up every month at your local general meeting. Critique from outside the organization, as if you were not a socialist, is not going to affect change. 

tl;dr: as a chapo who didn’t join DSA for years bc of the stigma here calling them radlibs, i ask of you, why are you seriously not in the DSA. for if you don’t like it, then join and act in the oppositional caucuses; and if you do like it but just haven’t joined, then come on comrade follow suit.

edit: This struggle session has been quite bountiful I will say. We have learned that there are three instances in the DSA's constitution that allow for (1) the expulsion of members that are under the discipline of democratic-centralist organizations (2) local charters will be revoked if the majority of members become under the discipline of democratic-centralism and that (3) local youth charters will be revoked if majority of members become. dem-cent.

  • TossedAccount [he/him]
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 years ago

    I'm not in DSA because I'm in an actual Marxist organization, one which is more than happy to work with members of local DSA groups or other organizations in a united-front fashion on specific issues or campaigns (except trying to get Dems elected, obviously), since that's an opportunity to put forth our politics and possibly even recruit DSA members sick of dealing with the Harringtonite succdems' bullshit. My current org is one which actually operates according to democratic centralism, is single-tendency, and focuses on recruiting members for the purposes of developing future revolutionary cadre and potential working-class leaders. This means we encourage every member to be regularly active in some fashion, and don't exaggerate our size by counting inactive "paper members" like the DSA does.

    When we vote on proposals, the outcomes of those votes are always binding. We haven't gotten stuck in endless, unproductive debates with people who aren't changing their mind over the question of Dem entryism since we split from our old organization. We start off with political agreement on at least 95% of issues and 100% of the most important issues, and discussion is held with the explicit goal of getting shit done or helping to educate and develop newer members.

    Whatever problems my old org had, the DSA Harringtonites are almost certainly much worse still. If the best Marxist elements of DSA were to consider joining up into a faction and splitting from the DSA altogether, they'd start off fewer in number but they'd have much greater political unity, and could develop a coherent political program with the clarity needed to organize quickly and punch above their weight. If some sort of unambiguously Marxist, democratic-centralist ex-DSA entity were formed in this fashion, one which shares my org's goals of breaking away from the Dems completely and building an independent workers' party and the basis for a revolutionary party, I would feel a little more comfortable forming a coalition with that group than with the DSA as it exists now. When the Bolsheviks and their co-thinkers broke off from the 2nd international, they were consciously breaking away from the same sort of opportunists who continue to occupy the DSA's national leadership, Harringtonites more than happy to endorse social imperialism by backing Bernie "F-35" Sanders.

    I'm sick of having to relitigate the Dem entryism question over and over again when the accumulated experience of the past 4 years or so, spent dealing with other people who continued clinging to false hope in Bernie, AOC, etc. should be more than conclusive, and that's without mentioning the similar failed Jesse Jackson campaign and the dissolution of most of the old Rainbow Coalition and old Black Maoists into the Democratic Party. I'm not going to even entertain the idea of DSA entryism or "dual membership" when I can help build my own organization, one which had the clarity to cut through all the opportunist and popular-frontist bullshit to hit the ground running and grow considerably (in relative terms anyway) since BLM came back with a vengeance this past year, and despite the objective obstacles presented by social distancing. This was during a period when other organizations or former members of completely dissolved orgs were still licking their wounds and trying to figure out what the hell to do next after getting a massive hangover from Bernie going from most likely to win to getting completely ratfucked and becoming completely irrelevant. Again, if I'm gonna deal with the DSA at all, it'll be only on a united-front basis on non-electoral campaigns (unless, of course, a local DSA branch in the same area is endorsing an independent socialist candidate, or the campaign is a ballot question worth organizing around).

    • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      I’m sick of having to relitigate the Dem entryism question over and over again

      The only way the left is going to get big enough to do anything is by convincing more people to join us. That necessarily means relitigating questions that are old hat to you. It's the difference between "it's not my job to educate you" vs. "as revolutionaries, we don’t have the right to say we are tired of explaining." The goal isn't to find other leftists who already agree with you; the goal is to convince non-leftists to become leftists.

      after getting a massive hangover from Bernie going from most likely to win to getting completely ratfucked and becoming completely irrelevant

      Bernie got ratfucked in 2016 and it didn't make his ideas irrelevant -- politicians for lower offices won (and keep winning) running on variations of his playbook, and Bernie himself came back with a much stronger campaign in 2020. He also did more to make the word "socialism" safe for mainstream political consumption than a generation of small, explicitly-leftist political groups. Writing off that entire branch of politics is a mistake.

      • TossedAccount [he/him]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        I should make it clear that just because I'm sick of explaining the problems with Dem entryism doesn't mean I'm gonna stop if it's necessary to continue. Probably half of my comments on this site are variations of me doing just that, because I know some of y'all are actually listening and searching for any excuse not to have to deal with DSA's bullshit. I know that being a good Marxist requires explaining the obvious, ad nauseam.

        What I absolutely will not abide, however, is spending any more time having to relitigate this question with opportunist leaders, with opportunists and careerists who will simply not fucking listen, especially if they're revisionist Marxists who should know better and will continue to drag the orgs they control away from revolutionary politics. I have firsthand experience dealing with this, being forced to develop a siege mentality with my co-thinkers against the majority of my own comrades, and I've never even been a DSA member.

        I would much rather be making this case to people who might be on the fence, people who might have been Bernie or AOC supporters even less than a year ago but are now receptive to a more radical message, and eagerly searching for a more explicitly revolutionary approach. I want to make this case to the fresh layers, the quickly-radicalizing and advanced-consciousness layers of the working class, the sort of people who might actually listen.

        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 years ago

          What I absolutely will not abide, however, is spending any more time having to relitigate this question with opportunist leaders,

          Talking to them is necessary, if only because it's a good way of reaching the people they speak to.

          And this edges dangerously close to "my school of leftist thought is definitely right, and all others are definitely wrong." No one for sure has all the right answers, because no one has yet built socialism in the imperial core.

          • TossedAccount [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            Unless we're in the same org, I would rather just speak to rank-and-file members of other orgs directly if they're willing to listen, or give them leaflets if I get the chance. Senior and high-ranking leaders of opportunist orgs tend to be invested in continuing what they've been doing even if they took a wrong turn somewhere and refuse to self-correct. If I'm somehow still in the same org as such people, something has gone horribly wrong.

            While you're correct that none of us can be completely sure our tendency is correct, given the experience of the past 5 or so years, especially the past year, it's easier than ever to write off the Dem-entryist strategy as counterproductive, a waste of comrades' scarce time, money, and energy that could be better spent on independent coalition-building/party-building or on any number of issue-specific campaigns and struggles where working-class people and community members are active.

    • PaulWall [he/him]
      hexagon
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      This is a fantastic answer! Your arguments on "paper members" versus active, revolutionary cadres hit hard and have weight to them. I encourage everyone in this thread to read, re-read, and read again this response. I'm curious if you are talking about the PSL or perhaps just a local democratic centralist organization, of course if OPSEC is a concern no answer is needed.

      • TossedAccount [he/him]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        My org is still pretty small right now but we might have a significant regional presence in a few years if we keep growing.

    • Pezevenk [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      When the Bolsheviks and their co-thinkers broke off from the 2nd international, they were consciously breaking away from the same sort of opportunists who continue to occupy the DSA’s national leadership, Harringtonites more than happy to endorse social imperialism by backing Bernie “F-35” Sanders.

      Τhe difference is that they broke away in 1912, when a revolution was much closer to happening. Remember that by that time an anti-monarchist revolution had already been attempted, but failed. There is no real hope for something "unambiguously marxist" or single tendency gaining strong presence in the US just yet. I don't even think anyone has come close to achieving anything big as a single tendency party or something like that anywhere in the west post-70s, and even in most other countries. That's not an indictment of these organizations since I am in one, but they usually benefit from being under a big tent. Like, the best anyone in the US can hope for for the next decades is something analogous to what Chavez or Morales did, and their parties were far from "single tendency". The DSA is something that has exposure and something that doesn't confuse people, unlike the myriads of tiny socialist organisations. There will be plenty of time to split with them when there is actually a serious reason and a good opportunity which will make people notice to do that. The DSA could work fine as a big tent thing for a while. Breaking up into ever smaller groups that never coalesce together has always been a cancer for the left, especially in more recent years, and it becomes impossible to rise above a certain level when that happens.

      EDIT: One thing that may complicate this is that, apparently, the DSA can expel people if they belong to democratic centralist orgs. Which sucks. But the DSA isn't something to be dismissed so easily.

      • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        the best anyone in the US can hope for for the next decades is something analogous to what Chavez or Morales did

        Examples U.S. leftists tend to forget when they write off electoralism.

        • TossedAccount [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          The problem with Chavez and Morales isn't that they ran their parties in elections, but that their parties are social-democratic parties.

          Meanwhile, rejecting Dem entryism isn't equivalent to rejection of participation in elections. The problem in the US is that we don't even have a large enough workers' party to even pull off what these two have, including fending off attempted coups against them and their parties. The much more likely outcome of a succdem winning a presidential election (if they somehow got past the entire gauntlet of ratfuckery, including gerrymandering and the electoral college) is that they'd probably just end up like Lula (or worse, like Allende) without any significant party presence in both houses of congress, and without an extremely mobilized and organized working class, the likes of which we've frankly never seen in the US.

          • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 years ago

            The much more likely outcome of a succdem winning a presidential election (if they somehow got past the entire gauntlet of ratfuckery, including gerrymandering and the electoral college) is that they’d probably just end up like Lula (or worse, like Allende) without any significant party presence in both houses of congress, and without an extremely mobilized and organized working class, the likes of which we’ve frankly never seen in the US.

            FDR is the counterexample here. He was extremely successful, and while he had much stronger party support than DSA-style Democrats have within the party today, he still had significant intra-party opposition (that's ultimately why Henry Wallace was replaced by Truman) and much less worker support than what you're describing. Some social democratic president in 2024 or beyond wouldn't be a 1:1 comparison for all sorts of reasons, but that's probably the best starting point.

            • TossedAccount [he/him]
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 years ago

              Counterpoints:

              1. FDR ran as a Democrat and was never not a liberal. He never called himself a socialist, and he was never a social democrat. Bernie is also not even a social democrat, and not worth even critically supporting (because he's an imperialist).
              2. FDR governed during a period when the international left was close to its peak strength, when the prospect of socialist revolution was extremely plausible and the US working class was immiserated and mad as hell. The implicit revolutionary threat implied by the continued existence of the Soviet Union pressured FDR's policies leftward to the point that his New Deal made him look like a succdem (when in reality he was just a Keynesian liberal).
              3. FDR actually did almost get couped by plutocrats (including Prescott Bush, Dubya's grandfather) during his first term because of this as though he were a succdem, because his fiscal policy and creation of a welfare state hurt their profits and the biggest capitalists were willing to gamble on fascism. It was only because Smedley Butler ratted out the consipirators that the coup failed, though of course none were prosecuted.
              • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                ·
                4 years ago

                not worth even critically supporting (because he’s an imperialist)

                It never ceases to amaze me how American leftists will critically support the Soviet Union or China on the grounds that in tough situations real-world socialists have to make hard compromises, but then left-ish American politicians have to be perfect avatars of pure theory. Look at how Bernie was raked over the coals for the simple factual statement that Cubans have good healthcare and education. If you won't even critically support the closest thing to a socialist since Debs, who had a far, far better chance to win than Debs, you're not really serious about winning.

                • TossedAccount [he/him]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  Asking for people to support an actual socialist (which, again, Bernie is not), even a revisionist, isn't asking that much. I supported and voted for Hawkins, himself probably far from perfect, but at least he's an actual socialist and the program he ran on this year is implicitly anti-imperialist. Hawkins is probably the bare minimum to be honest, a mere starting point. I'm not asking for the second coming of Lenin here, but we can do much better than to settle for an FDR-style liberal imperialist who used to be a Eugene Debs fanboy 40+ years ago, who still thinks the left should work in a popular front led by Joe Biden. We can do better than continue to entertain this dead-end strategy of trying either to take over the Dems from the inside or attempting some sort of dirty break from the Dems from the inside.

                  Even the CTH hosts, some of Bernie's biggest supporters, now know better than to continue with this strategy, because they were always sincere enemies of the neoliberal clique who actually control the Democratic Party, unlike Bernie himself who considers Biden a friend. Winning a general election is hard enough by itself; allowing the Democrats to decide the fate of your campaign, handicapping yourself by playing primary Calvinball with them and giving the Dems extra opportunities to ruin it before the general election even starts is a completely avoidable mistake, a tempting false alternative to doing the difficult work needed to establish an independent socialist party capable of externally challenging the Democrats.

                  • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    I supported and voted for Hawkins

                    We can do better than continue to entertain this dead-end strategy of trying either to take over the Dems from the inside or attempting some sort of dirty break from the Dems from the inside.

                    Either of those strategies is far more promising than supporting the likes of Howie Hawkins. Sanders actually had a real shot. No tiny, independent leftist third party ever has. Tons of ordinary people supported Bernie -- not just terminally-online leftists, not just the same cadre of local leftists who've been hopping from splinter group to splinter group since the 60s. We need numbers to win, and one approach has actually put something approaching the required numbers together.

      • volkvulture [none/use name]
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 years ago

        no one benefits in the US from keeping disparate factions under Dems' big tent other than corporate lobbies & movement wreckers

        The DSA is something to be dismissed in practice because of its insistence on the ballot box as a measure of political will

        • Pezevenk [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          movement wreckers

          Wreck what movement? You don't even have a real movement yet, and you're not going to unless there is at least some organization that can push for greater visibility and arrange things.

          • volkvulture [none/use name]
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 years ago

            BLM & Occupy & Green & Peace & Rainbow Coalition & so many other movements all come to mind

            all have reduced visibility and viability since they were first thrust on the scene... all because of insistence on Democratic party entryism & inordinate focus on getting White liberals to embrace that criticism of the Democratic party. Something they are mostly wont to do

            • Pezevenk [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              With the exception of BLM and some environmental movements, these are not going on any longer. And none of them really ever had much more potential than what was realized, except maybe BLM. It is natural for these things to come and go, but what they leave behind is valuable. What the US completely lacks is a major coordinated working class movement that can keep going. This sort of stuff doesn't just start on its own without any political representation. Heck, the US almost completely lacks labor unions, especially labor unions willing to strike. This is a BIG deal that many people overlook. There are certain things that have to be put into place before we can really talk about who's just a radlib, who's an opportunist, who to get rid off and if there is a point in splitting. I'm not under the illusion the DSA is great or anything, and I do think participation and support of the DSA would probably work better as part of a strategy of a democratic centralist organisation that decided supporting the DSA is useful. But it is good to have ONE thing you can point to people and say, here, come with us, and we will try to make things better. It is good to be able to influence things within said thing, when it is by far the most prevalent carrier of left wing politics in the US. The fact that it is so loose is a double edged sword. It makes it easy to infiltrate, but also it can accommodate many different people, and it makes the fact that it can be infiltrated matter less (for now) exactly because there is no strong central direction. There are important things that have to be done before there is any point in trying to put together something more robust.

              • volkvulture [none/use name]
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 years ago

                "natural for these things to come and go"

                sounds more like passive acceptance of the ineffectiveness in America of electoralism to take up any important social issue. not just a matter of individual voters not being motivated to vote for policy platforms that practically address their own interests

                trying to make things better is all well and good, but if we're not self-criticizing and moving away from ineffective strategies, then we're just swirling in the toilet of Democratic Party politics. I wouldn't even say it's a double-edged sword, the edge of two-party electoral determinism always faces those who dissent in US

                • Pezevenk [he/him]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  sounds more like passive acceptance of the ineffectiveness in America of electoralism to take up any important social issue.

                  No, it just... Is. When there is an outburst, it doesn't last very long usually. I don't know what you expected to happen but the way things are there wasn't much you could do to keep them going for years somehow.

                  trying to make things better is all well and good, but if we’re not self-criticizing and moving away from ineffective strategies,

                  I see no signs it is an ineffective strategy. On the contrary. I think the issue is that you expect something to happen that is impossible. I don't know why you keep talking about electoralism, that's not nearly the most important reason to participate.

                  • volkvulture [none/use name]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 years ago

                    for many liberals, including much older and well-established frequent voters, those notions of "democracy" or "electoral compromise" or whatever are literally the prime motivating factors

                    it's just the same feel-good notion we as workers get when we buy the lottery ticket. it's sublimated instantaneously when you leave the polling place

                    having politics mean absolutely nothing & be in the background is infinitely more comforting for them

                    everything else is melted down into Democratic Party signifiers & shibboleths... nothing is internalized & all decent intention is stripped of meaning within the DNC sausage-making process

            • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              inordinate focus on getting White liberals to embrace that criticism of the Democratic party

              If you can't get white liberals to abandon the Democratic Party, good luck accomplishing anything with any sort of leftist strategy. They're not going to sit idly by while they lose political power, so it's either get them on board or fight against them. And if you're fighting against them, you're taking on the two major political parties in the most powerful country on the planet, right at home.

                • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  Well, then good luck. I personally don't see how any leftist movement is going anywhere if it can't even siphon off significant support from the leftmost major party in the country.

                  And a bunch are getting on board. Most people here used to be libs.

                  • volkvulture [none/use name]
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    without significant issues to rally around, whether they're strictly economic or strictly social or some combination, we're just preparing ourselves to be melted back down into the Democratic Party... pretty simple