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.
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?