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.
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.
Examples U.S. leftists tend to forget when they write off electoralism.
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.
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.
Counterpoints:
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.
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.
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.
Bernie had "the numbers" but he didn't have anything even remotely approaching a revolutionary program, nor did he even attempt to sustain momentum between elections until he announced he was running again in 2019, leaving the in-between non-electoral work to the DSA. Even if Bernie somehow won, what would that accomplish? He would still support regime change overseas, and he would have maybe used his executive powers to make life marginally better for working-class Americans, enjoying almost no support from congress. Some elements of the working class who just wanted free healthcare and education might go back to being complete libs content with Bernie's FDR-style "social imperialism", instead of seeing past their immediate concerns and taking a broader internationalist perspective, not unlike the spoiled-rotten Scandinavian libs who've been bought off and still enjoy even higher living standards off the backs of the global proletariat than Anglos do, even as they've begun to feel the inevitable gravitational pull of neoliberal austerity.
Hawkins obviously had no shot at winning; that ridiculous expectation isn't why I supported him. Hawkins ran not on the basis of some delusion that he'd win the electoral college or the popular vote, but because Greens have to run a presidential candidate to stay on the ballot; it was an opportunity for Hawkins to put forth something closer to a revolutionary political program and actually attempt to start the long, difficult process of building an independent working-class coalition as the basis for an eventual independent socialist party, even if it means starting almost from scratch with "splinter groups" with mostly-correct politics. Reaching out to chronic non-voters, almost 40% of the eligible voting-age population, without having to conform to the artificial limitations imposed by Democratic leadership, in addition to attracting the left-most 3rd party and Dem voters just waiting for an excuse to vote for a candidate who actually gives a shit about them, means an independent workers' party has the potential to eventually have the numbers advantage, while still building and organizing around an actual socialist banner.
Because he's not Lenin, he's a Senator in his 70s. You want to talk about ridiculous expectations? If you write off anyone who isn't a revolutionary, you're not getting anything done, at least not anytime soon.
This is far too pessimistic. For every aspect of imperialism you can point to and say he supported, you can also point to something like his opposition to the Iraq War or his praise of Cuba.
Marginally better for you is life-changing for someone else.
The Sanders campaign did far more to push socialism into mainstream political consciousness than countless efforts like this. It's much easier to turn people on to leftist ideas and get them to join leftist organizations when capitalist realism has been challenged at the highest level.
critical support for Smartmatic & Dominion Voting Systems
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
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.
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
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.
they aren't getting on board
we are fighting against them
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.
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
Issues like universal healthcare? The cost of a college education? A job guarantee? Ending police violence?
There are plenty of issues that can (and already have, to a limited extent) split off white liberals from the Democratic Party.
oh right, those things that the Democratic Party leadership have repeatedly & unabashedly insisted will not be taken up in Congress, whether controlled by Dems or not?
Uh, yes. Those are exactly the type of issues that people will rally around, that won't simply get melted back into the Democratic Party. Mainstream Democrats' refusal to move on them is exactly why so many people are looking at least as far as the left wing of the party.
deleted by creator
but again, we're talking about electoralism and "voting" these "reforms" into place... which will require Democratic Party politicking, not just attracting a critical mass of White liberal base (something that through experience does not happen)
Again, if you believe this, good luck. If you're planning on fighting both major parties in the most powerful country on the planet, you're veering into "I'll start a protracted people's war with my five True Leftist friends" territory. The numbers just ain't there.
The viability of this changes as the size of the left grows. If the DSA -- not a marxist group, but a group that pushes policies significantly to the left of Democrats, that Democrats have no current interest in adopting -- starts winning more local seats and builds more of a congressional caucus, mainstream Democrats might balk at rigging a presidential primary against them, or might not be able to do so.
The numbers just ain't there
kind of sums it up, doesn't it?
The numbers aren't there if we write off white liberals without even trying. If we can turn some libs into leftists, there's a shot.
okay, keep lionizing and steel-manning the "potential" for White liberals to embrace even the slightest left reform
we'll be old & grey by the time you realize they aren't budging
OK, then what's your plan? Honestly, how do you expect to beat both the Democrats and Republicans without siphoning off any significant support from either party? I'm not fucking with you -- I'm all ears if you have a workable idea. I just don't see it, and defeatism isn't acceptable.
And if your answer is "activate the people who don't regularly vote," Bernie just tried that, and it wasn't enough. And if your answer is "get them involved in direct action instead of voting," I have a hard time believing that people who aren't politically active at all, who didn't even go out and vote, are going to show up in the numbers and the regularity it would take to sustain any sort of non-electoral campaign.
Nothing is happening within electoral politics in America... and if you can't see that over the course of 2020, then I am not sure what you're holding out hope for
Everything and I mean EVERYTHING that progressives & radlibs and all of their disparate factions attempted to throw against the wall has been roundly rejected. That means M4A & "Defund the Police" and "tax the rich" and just about every slogan or "movement" you could think of will be co-opted/watered down/ and rejected all the same
The Dems exist to lock out the left, not to fairly & justly allow the left to outmaneuver their legitimacy
There is no "workable idea" if your plan is to "vote" in anti-capitalism & universal single-payer. The corporate lobbies own both parties, there is no entryism... to hold out hope that they (meaning liberal voters & DNC apparatchiks) will one day see clearly the moral high-ground is delusional. And I do mean that
So your answer is: nothing. You have no alternate plan.
If the Bernie/DSA strategy has only a 1% chance of success, it's still better than your plan, which is nothing and has no chance of success. If the Bernie/DSA strategy is completely hopeless, it's still better than your plan -- which is nothing -- because it will at least get people together who might think of a better answer. Forgive me for thinking this conversation has been useless if the best you can come up with is complaints.
no, it's literally organizing at work and among your friends and family... that's really it
no one has a "plan", isn't that obvious? The DSA ESPECIALLY doesn't have a plan because all they need you to do is VOOT... which in and of itself accomplishes 0
Organize who?
You've written off all Democratic voters, and I'm assuming you're not planning on chuds leading you to the promised land either. So we're back to asking people who don't vote -- and who didn't come out to vote in big numbers even when Bernie offered them material improvements -- to do something far more politically involved than voting.
Good luck.
Your co-workers... not voters as some necessary unquestionably coherent bloc. Why are you ignoring dual power? Why are you ignoring the real effect that workers can have to influence & change their own economic situations? Real organizing starts on the community & workplace level as far from the ballot box as you can think.
Poor people don't vote because they don't see it working, and can you really blame them? We don't have to convince poor people to vote for our personal faves, we can just organize among our fellow workers & poor and see what they want. Mao knew this perfectly well
"organizing" voters is like herding cats, they're motivated by selfish & performative cable news talking points... not needed revolutionary change.
No, we're asking for basic economic rights & workplace democracy... that's literally what leftism is
imagining you can vote away the rich's wealth was eschewed longer than 120 years ago. It's not happening
Note also that "organize!" is no more of a plan than "vote!" is. Vague directives are useless. You have no plan, you're just taking pot shots at people who are actually trying something with a chance at working.
You have no plan lol... so keep paying your DSA dues and hoping & voting
Hoping and voting all your life
:pigpoop:
and voting & hoping
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
vootin' & hopin' & copin'
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.
"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
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.
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.
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
Yes but what does that have to do with what I said? That's a very widespread attitude and it won't easily change. I said many times that what's really important is that more workplaces get organized, and unions expand. This is something that the DSA CAN aid with, provided enough people push for that. It also can't hurt that they promote local and candidates who are amenable to the left's causes, support unions. The fact that so many people now are willing to consider the left and don't get an aneurysm when you mention socialism is an immense success for the US. No one really expected that could happen. No one expected the widespread support for BLM either. But there are limits to what can be achieved in the short term. Class struggle isn't so advanced yet that DSA succs are "obsolete" or whatever. When people look at it and say "nah I'm not joining that, they're not radical enough and ineffective", usually they either end up joining some irrelevant book club at best, or nothing at all at worst. And there is no point to that.
I agree that short-term efforts & long-term goals can be considered separately, but these things do not happen within the context of voting
And the Democratic Party still stands as an obstacle, even if you accrete enough disaffected liberals & progressives over time. The Democratic Party isn't going anywhere, and looms large over the left's political considerations whether we want to admit it or not
But why are you talking about voting? I am not.
Yes, exactly, it looms large over the left, and it's not gonna stop just because someone wills it to or because someone refuses to participate in the DSA or whatever. There is little real progress that can be made without engaging with its structures and offshoots in any way, exactly because of how large and significant it is.
It's large, but in its own admissions & practical outcomes, it's not very significant
The democratic party is not significant? One of the two parties that have been governing the US since forever is not significant?
What?
The party's crowning achievement is that it went from the racist political affiliation of Slaveocracy & the KKK, to union busting & anti-communism & anti-Black liberation
not a very good track record, even if they secured others the right to vote Democrat
It's not about a good track record. I said it is significant. Which it is.
in what way?
Is it not obvious in what way literally the largest, most influential, and most frequently governing party in the US during the last few decades is significant? There is this weird meme that people think the democratic party is just incompetent and ineffectual, but it's clearly not, they only act that way when they don't really want to do something that their voters want them to do.
what? they are the least meaningfully influential & accomplish very little
I didn't say this was unintentional on their part
How... How do they accomplish little? They accomplish tons, just like the republicans, they just don't accomplish anything we like because they don't want to.
By "accomplish", I'm talking specifically about attending to the needs of the great mass of people
But if you're talking about doing their damnedest to prevent any government-sponsored alleviation of suffering & stifle ideological drift away from liberalism, then yes the Dems are pulling their own weight deftly