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.

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

    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

    • Pezevenk [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I agree that short-term efforts & long-term goals can be considered separately, but these things do not happen within the context of voting

      But why are you talking about voting? I am not.

      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

      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.

        • Pezevenk [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          The democratic party is not significant? One of the two parties that have been governing the US since forever is not significant?

          What?

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

            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

            • Pezevenk [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              It's not about a good track record. I said it is significant. Which it is.

                • Pezevenk [he/him]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  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.

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

                    what? they are the least meaningfully influential & accomplish very little

                    I didn't say this was unintentional on their part

                    • Pezevenk [he/him]
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      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.

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

                        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