Looks like Socialist Alternative is going to try to make DSA form a workers party by having some of it's members join DSA.
Current DSA by-laws allow for chapters to expel members for being in Democratic Centralist organizations but its not automatic. It also seems like SAlt isn't telling their members to join en-masse, just a few to push for a new workers party at meetings.
My DSA chapter isn't happy about this but it seems like most apprehension seems to be from their experience with individual SAlt members, first and the rudeness of the tactic, second. But there seems to be little consideration of their goals.
we're going to end up like terf island and have about 20 different trot parties
We already do, they're just going to try to take over the remaining good organizations and break them into a thousand pieces like they always do
If your 80,000+ person socialist org implodes when a few dozen Trotskyists join, maybe the problem wasn’t the few dozen Trotskyists.
ha we probably already got more trots in DSA than all other trot parties in the us combined
This is the weakness of the DSA, though SAlt has way more members than a few dozen. It's probably the third largest socialist org in the country after PSL
“Socialist Alternative members are not planning to join DSA “en masse,” ... Instead, a few dozen Socialist Alternative members will be joining DSA across the country to work together to build the socialist movement.”
Damn I trust the word of Trotskyists who have done nothing but make is look like fucking fools for the past couple years when they talk about doing entryism.
Seriously, this is a thing that trots always do, it's how they fracture organizations into tiny little pieces.
Honestly they should just do entryism to the green party and then try to recruit our independent candidates from there. I don't even think the greens would be mad.
They should just stop doing dumb shit that everyone knows won't work. Like building a workers party sounds great, but they just have to do entryism to get there lol. They really can't help themselves. They had their moment with getting Kshama Sawant elected but since then they've just made the left look stupid.
The idea of building a party on an independent ticket is also just not in the cards right now with the way US elections work. State legislatures control who can run on what party ticket, not the parties.
I'm in DSA, I have my problems, but this will not work out or solve them. Also that anti Democratic Centralist rule should be gotten rid of. That is just a bad look. This entryism might actually result in it actually being used.
To be fair... Democratic Centralism actually prevents the kind of harm this behaviour causes. One of the major reasons ML parties are so resilient while Trots are known for splits left right and centre is because democratic centralism keeps ML parties from doing that shit while the Trot parties splinter over and over and over again over disagreements.
In this case, the threat this poses is that it could cause splits within DSA. That's precisely one thing Democratic Centralism has helped prevent for ML parties.
ML parties/groups are not exactly resilient compared to trots either (Trotskyists use democratic centralism very explicitly too lol, it does not stop splits, if anything it increases them). ML parties in the US have died and split just as much as Trotskyist parties (The New Communist Movement was all ML and it split incredibly badly). Same in the UK, France, Germany, India (especially India, there was a 20 year period of constant splits), the Philippines. The only places they've never split is where one faction got state power and used that state power to maintain unity by forcing the splits out of politics all together or keep the factions bubbling underneath the surface (neither of which is a good thing in the long run and not good for moving to socialism).
I mean just look at this image, which traces the origins of different ml groups in the US between 1956 and 1977. The largest US left group in the sixties, SDS, blew up because of ML infighting among those factions of the organization.
Red Star Collective (FBI)
I'm thinking these guys might be up to no good.
There's actually an interesting story behind that one: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-2/cousml-6.htm
That's all just in the US in the years 1956-1975, which were years of internation crisis and splits in ML parties after the death of Stalin and Khreuchev's denunciation of Stalin, which created a huge legitimacy crisis which caused an upsurge in factionalism. Many countries with a strong party were able to weather the storm, but the CPUSA was not and pro-Stalin, ML members like Harry Haywood were purged and a lot of these people got caught up in the second red scare. Those that remained were left to pick up the pieces with no single big party to really orient themselves around, so they formed up into a bunch of tiny groups.
I mean that's the point about state power backing and demcent, without it you split. Why do all the trotskyist groups split, a fragile 4th international with no power and active persecution.
I don't think a single country whose communist party was not in control of the state and suppressed splits has not had at least one severe split.
Not to move the goalpost, but I think there is something to be said about the different kinds of splits. I won't try to argue this here, but I think when people view Trotskyists as "splitters" they're mostly trying to say that Trots will split over very minor things and are being sectarian. The verify the truth of such a claim would require a pretty robust understanding of many Trotskyist splits across time and space.
I see a lot of ML party splits to have been pretty necessary, such as the split between the CP of Great Britan and the CP of Britan or the CPUSA and PCUSA but that's just because I have a much better understanding of the history behind those parties than I do the Trotskyist parties. Maybe the Trotskyist splits are principled as well and this is just inevitable when the party isn't wielding state power, as you put it, but I think this is where MLs at least are coming at least. I hope this doesn't come off as sectarian, I have no beef with any present-day trotskyist parties lol
Yeah idk, you have to go track all the reasons. I'm mainly familiar with the new communist splits and the us trotskyist splits, of which this is a decent graph of their splits, those some groups are also dead now/do not refer to themselves as trotskyist anymore.
Yeah I've seem that map before, it's pretty neat especially how it tries to give some detail on the nature of the splits. If you have any resources on Trotskyism in the US and their splits I'd be pretty interested.
I do have one on Bolivia, Bolivia's Radical Tradition: Permanent Revolution in The Andes, as Bolivian Trotskyists were actually very important to the left movement of the country for a pretty long time.
There's also a satire novel about Trotskyists during the fall of the USSR by Tariq Ali that is very funny if you know the people it's alluding to. It's called Redemption.
Haymarket books has a good three volume series on the history of US Trotskyism .
Most of the shit on that are not parties, let alone ML parties.
"ML splintering caused Students for a Democratic Society and the Committee for a Unified Newark" I wish we could claim that.
Unless, is this graph just meant to show the ML identifying groups in the US? Or is it supposed to show party splits?
This is all known (at least to who made the graph and deemed relevant) ML identifying groups in the US between 1956 and 1977, showing where they form, split, rejoin, etc. Some acted as parties some did not. It's broadly charting the new communist movement, which was for the most part ML(M).
SDS is on there to show the origin of the different ml groups that split from it after 1969. Also if anyone wants to read the absolute insanity that was 60s ML and Maoist sectarianism, check out this recount of the 1969 SDS convention.
Ah, that makes sense.
I agree with your take about state power. I'd also add that a communist party that is constantly splitting will never achieve state power. The successful parties have been ML parties which effectively use DemCen. There are also countless ML parties that are dogshit at DemCen.
Thanks, it actually needs to be updated as there have been more splits and defunct orgs since. It'd be neat to get it all mapped out.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/new-communist-movement-revolution-sds-maoism here's a really good article on some of those splits.
Yeah but if DSA was DemCent then it wouldn't be a big enough organization worth taking over. 🤷♂️
if DSA was demcent the electoralists and economists would win the majority and DSA would suck lol. that kind of methodology doesnt really work when broadly applied in an org where you have both social democrats and communists
if DSA was DemCent then it wouldn’t be a big enough organization worth taking over.
as long as they brand as DSA i think itd still be p big
The process of DSA becoming DemCent would invariably cause splits and plummets in membership because people who signed up to be in DSA did not sign up for a DemCent organization.
It is incredibly naiive to believe that DSAs power was its brand and not its ideology of being a big tent.
The paper membership would be a huge coup for whatever group took over DSA. But, the meetings would just wind up being the 3 Trots discussing their newspaper and issuing condemnations of other microsects.
I really don't like the idea of DSA being "a party", and I don't want SA to try to push it to become one. They are more effective as an org. Wish my current branch was less electoralism focused tbh.
less electoralism focused
Democratic Socialism is the ideology of electoralism, not sure what else could be expected of them
Not everyone in the DSA is a demsoc, and not every DSA chapter is solely focused on electoralism.
They are deliberately decentralized, leading to a ymmv situation between chapters. Many chapters are much more militant than others.
Big tent means big tent.
I'm in SA. A party isn't like the Dems/Repubs, it's a lot more like Labour in the UK. Where the party is built and run by working class people across the spectrum and uses it's collective power for politcal and communal goals. It's not trying to add DSA to the ticket, more like organize strikes/activism that will end up benefiting the community it exists in
The best example is to look at Kshama Sawant in Seattle. Used her power in the city council to get $15/hr minimum wage and a $240 million tax to find public housing. With collective organising we can achieve a lot
it’s a lot more like Labour in the UK.
Where can I read about what that's like? I only ever hear about Labour when they're doing some bullshit.
it’s a lot more like Labour in the UK.
So, steaming garbage through and through?
dem cent doesnt mean any one specific thing. Even in the dem party in the progressive caucus they now will bring members up for an expulsion vote if they do not vote with the democratically agreed upon caucus line 3 times. Chicago DSA censured Vasquez for his vote on the budget and going against the political line of the chapter.
i dont understand what you mean by "doing the same with the general membership". dem centralism doesnt mean "everyone has to believe this or they're expelled", there's nothing baring any member from ideological diversity in a dem centralist org. just means you accept that if a certain majority decides on something in terms of a political or strategic line we all accept that as a point of unity. we already have certain points of unity that we broadly apply to everyone in DSA. and no i dont think that a broad application of a democratic centralist organizational structure would make any sense with how dsa is structured, but it can obviously be used for certain things like elected officials, national campaigns, certain basic ideologies, etc.
But that bylaw is just needlessly antagonistic to specific other socialists in other orgs including trots, marxist, mls, maoists, communists, whatever they want to call themselves and use dem centralism. This isnt conducive in a catch all socialist org if we actually want to grow a significant national socialist movement where we dont ban tendencies and differing ideologies and allow for democratic debate on how we should run and do things.
But you dont get the boot if you disagree with something, its just that the time for debate is over and you can't go back and say lets actually do something else instead unless there's a vote held of changing strategies or something in that regards. The reason this isnt needed in DSA is because so many people are doing so many different things all on their own from chapter to chapter and from caucus to caucus and from working group to working group. This can be good, in that for example DSA sucked ass even 4-6 years ago, and people were able to do their own thing and organize and push for things they thought were more important than what the more predominant thinking might have been, which has grown different tendencies within the org. But this also creates a ton of problems too, such as 20 different chapters each undertaking creating its own resources and education content instead of relying directly on certain basic things through national.
We now have everyone spending hours in zoom meetings and running around doing small actions and working on small campaigns and honestly its just not a great strategy after a certain point. A few handful of people working simultaneously in one chapter on 20 different things is not going to result in much, and it might be better to consolidate and focus on few but more serious campaigns. I can see how a more centralized strategy can help in that regard. For example the membership drive was very successful because it was a national campaign. It would have been a disaster if every chapter was told to just do whatever and figure it out. In fact it would have been much more successful if it was even more centrally planned in terms of providing resources and materials for local chapters and organizing local direct actions and planning community engagement events to get more members, instead of just hoping chapters figure out how to do it all themselves.
This is exactly not what DSA should do and shows a pathetic understanding of how a mass volunteer organization works. If the chapter told everyone in the labor working group to work on electoralism they'd just not work because that's not what they want to do. You can't tell the environmentalists to work on tenants rights and expect them all to actually do it.
This scattered method of "do whatever" has its draw backs for sure but its the reason why DSA keeps growing and demcents don't.
Rereading and you make a little more sense. I don't know how you actually have 20 different campaigns going on in your chapter though. It makes more sense to have as many working groups as you need but have those groups focus on a specific thing. Like you shouldn't have multiple tenants groups attempting different strategies.
Chapters already decide all the time on priority campaigns and how to focus funding to actually have things be successful. Im not saying prohibit people from doing whatever, but prioritizing things makes those important campaigns more successful, its about not stretching chapters too thin by not having any sort of cohesive planning or general cooperation. Sometimes it just makes sense to consolidate working groups and committees if they could be working together under a more broad campaign if theres only a couple people doing somewhat similar or related work. Its a problem that shows up sometimes imo in larger chapters, and it can overwork people and not lead to anything if the campaigns split up the membership too much. Not to even mention our inability to even organize state wide or nationally, both things that need to be actually undertaken if we ever want to be relevant in this country.
DSA is organized around an opposing principle to Democratic Centralism in the form of internal pluralism
True internal pluralism is opposed to expelling people who belong to democratic centrist orgs though. DSA isn't a party. It should act as a big tent and nothing more. If you start expelling members because they adhere to the line of some dem cent organisation, that basically just says "we accept diverse viewpoints and praxis but only if they are your personal, individual viewpoints" which isn't really a big tent any more.
It says that you can be expelled for being in a dem cent org. That's a bad rule because that's more or less every communist (who is a communist in practice).
Yeah some members are pretty mad. Personally, I think this will basically have no influence given how few people are in salt, but that article also annoyed me with some of its characterizations about how dsa works.
My main grief with the article is that it puts very little effort into explaining their vision for this new workers party. One of the main points of being a political party is to express an coherent strategy. Instead, the article just sounds like a recruitment peice.
All the small microparties do this. I mean the IMT's youth wing spends all its time attacking YDSA, and asking people to join it instead.
The IMT attacks everyone, Ive had IMT people attack PSL and tell me to join their real revolutionary org instead lol, but theres a handful of IMT people in the US its not that predominant, nor do i specifically have any beef with them. SAlt is the second largest socialist org after CPUSA though.
well if its large enough that a potential newfound SAlt caucus within DSA would cause big tensions within our entire org than they obviously hold a significant enough presence in the US for it to matter if they could influence internal DSA affairs if they wanted to, hence why we're even having this discussion in the first place
I don't think it would cause big tensions. At most it could cause issues inside Seattle DSA. The ISO had more members than SAlt and many of them joined DSA and there's been no appreciable change. Some former ISO members are in national leadership but they didn't get there via a caucus of concentrated ISO members joining.
Like all the responses I've gotten about the SAlt piece from other members is concern that SAlt is dissolving, and just that the proposal is rude. There's virtually no discussion that SAlt could actually influence DSA beyond the Seattle chapter.
ISO members didnt really come in and form a caucus though, and even then there were still tensions and concerns about it, but if SA did or if they merged with R&R it would certainly cause tensions among the members who are vehemently opposed to forming a party, and ive certainly seen a lot of responses for people being very against it. SA's membership is somewhere over 2k I believe, tho ive seen varying estimates that go higher so idk. From my experience in NYC I feel like SA is pretty similar to DSA so i dont really care about this whole thing, they can all join or whatever, the more the merrier.
SAlt is definitely a COINTELPRO op designed to people dislike them and the left by extension, right?
They're Trots, basically the same thing except we're doing it to ourselves
Can we try to avoid bad jacketing on here? You can disagree with their ideology and strategy or whatever but I don't think we should get in the habit of throwing baseless accusations like this because it promotes a culture that will inevitably come back to haunt us as a movement (see: COINTELPRO and the feds copious use of bad jacketing to break up organisations)
They're the only group in the entire US that has an actual literal socialist in elected office, so no they aren't an op.
It persists from the 80s when DSA was explicitly anticommunist. Its not anymore but there is some rationale for not letting your organization become controlled by members more loyal to another organization.
We have a bunch of ex ISO members in our chapter who view having dual membership as being very rude.
Yeah, this is kinda making me think, it isn't an entirely unjustified rule despite the very bad anticommunist rules.
It should be replaced for sure. Something that leaves us open to DemCents but also protects against splitting and hostile takeovers. Something like:
members may not share membership with other organizations actively mobilizing to acquire leadership positions in DSA.
Or something more specific. I think our politicians should be allowed to share membership with a DemCent organization. Just not our leadership because that's a conflict of interest.
That would fuck up a lot of chapters though. You need to basically just keep it as a rule that's applied by chapter majority. Having that be automatic would cripple smaller chapters because if DSA in an area only has 20 members, leadership is most definitely also leadership in other orgs.
SRA and DSA have a lot of leadership overlap here, we have a few PSL people, but they aren't really active in the chapter.
Definitely. It's a chapter by chapter issue. I don't think national should really do anything with the existing law as it's not an automatic expulsion, but allows for wreckers to be kicked by vote.
I'm fine with one that bans dual carding for any org that acts in a way DSA deems collectively undemocratic or reactionary or demands they vote for measures that are not wholly originated in DSA (this is all kind of loose, but so is the demcent ban as is). Like If PSL sent members to some DSA chapter, and then voted to give that chapters funds to a front group of PSL, that should be banned.
o
DSA were cold war Anti-Marxists, they celebrated the end of the USSR. If anyone wants to point fingers at being an OP, well DSA is just as suspicious as CPUSA. Both are funnels of leftwing anger towards the Dems.
It was to try and prevent people from WWP and other sects coming in and wrecking chapters in the 80s and 90s like PL did to SDS. Preventing entryism is still a (but lesser as DSA is so much bigger than all other orgs now) concern and has been used in recent years to stop chapters from ending up as front groups. The original clause is from the New American Movement, one of the groups that merged with DSOC to form DSA. NAM was explicitly Marxist, but did not like the demcent model of the New Communist Movement groups and also was dealing with entryism into some of its chapters.
Another, imo bigger, concern is that since DSA is a multi-tendency org, democratic centralism serves no use as there are large contingents of DSA that are explicitly opposed to it like the LSC caucus which wants strong independence for the chapters, and people who would rather have the factions via the caucuses fight things out at the convention in a more public way than it would be if there was a demcent clause in the org that leads to splits. Like what happens if at the convention a political education proposal passes, well there's gonna be a massive amount of debate around what readings get put on that, and some chapters more dominated by different caucuses are not gonna like whatever comes out, do we kick those chapters out, I would say absolutely not. On the otherhand if a chapter ends up having a bunch of sex pests or plants or does terrible shit, national should vote to dissolve that chapter and deny it of resources. Some things don't need unity, others do.
Also the way US political parties work (and DSA is not a party in the technical sense), democratic centralism just doesn't make that much sense imo. State legislatures run party rules. There's also a few old new left people around that remember how bad some dem cent orgs got in the 70s and don't want to risk repeating that.
The fact that the bylaw specifically signals out dem centralist affiliations as a reason that can be used for expulsion specifically is pretty incoherent and needlessly antagonistic. Expulsion for outside interference can apply to any group that enters DSA including people from like the green party, democrats, etc. with the purpose of specifically making a front group or influencing internal affairs at the behest of a different outside group. If people from those groups can be stopped it doesnt make sense to then also signal out specifically dem centralism as another reason in it of itself. Also people should know DSA has no bylaws against dual carding with other orgs. People being outraged that socialists are joining a catch all socialist org seems silly to me. Did people just expect the 25+ other socialist orgs that exist to not eventually consolidate in certain ways once DSA grows larger in size?
I would support some changes to the clause, but the text
Members can be expelled if they are found to be in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization or if they consistently engage in undemocratic, disruptive behavior or if they are under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization. Members facing expulsion must receive written notice of charges against them and must be given the opportunity to be heard before the NPC or a subcommittee thereof, appointed for the purpose of considering expulsion.
is imo not that bad. I see it as a tool in the toolbox for a chapter to kick someone out and discourage dualcarding in orgs that are opposed to how DSA operates. If someone in SAlt wants to join DSA, it should be because they think SAlt is not working and they need to try something else, they should not be torn between both orgs. It's a can clause, not a will. No chapter is just going to chuck someone because they're dual carding in like Solidarity, because Solidarity doesn't act to undermine DSA. Nor is someone dualcarding with SAlt going to be removed by their chapter unless they start shit. The only people that would get auto thrown out are like WWP members.
I could support changing the text to be something stronger though, like being under the discipline of a demcent organization historically antagonistic to DSA.
If you want to ban dual carding than submit that as a proposal, but since there is no such bylaw, it just feels like a bad faith argument. If someone is in a socialist org thats not too big and the local dsa chapter also isnt too big but growing faster, they could very well want to start getting involved with DSA too since for the most part we all undertake similar strategies. Also if there is a party that someone is more interested in and DSA doesnt really have people of that tendency or a local caucus or something beyond electoral someone might have a reason to join another org as well and work with them on different things than what dsa is doing. Why would we demand that person break ties and have to leave their org and the people they knew? Realistically that just discourages people from joining and it hinders growth.
I think that's a vanishingly small amount of people. I mean NYC DSA added more than 1000 people during the recruitment drive. That's more than the membership of every other socialist organization in the city. In my own chapter we've only ever had a single person ever that was torn between joining DSA and another org, and it was IMT. The smaller parties are not active except in large democratic cities, there's nowhere where the local PSL or SAlt chapter is larger than the local DSA one, or where the DSA one is small enough that it has no working groups outside of an electoral one and there's another org present in appreciable numbers.
Yeah but it varies from city to city, some dsa chapters just dont have what to offer to people like NYC does, and if people want for whatever reason to also be involved with a different party I dont see why that would matter. I just dont see how people see a downside to more socialists joining and organizing within DSA, or why we would deter people from doing that. I know people in the MC that are in DSA as well, i could certainly see it consolidating more if marxist caucuses in dsa grow further.
Current DSA by-laws allow for chapters to expel members for being in Democratic Centralist organizations
Also DSA: Why do all of our candidates get nothing done?
DSA is mostly geared towards base building a left that largely doesn't exist in the US. Being big tent and multi-tendancy is essential to doing that as is not getting cannibalized and split by various DemCent groups fighting over leadership positions in DSA.
The crux of the matter is DSA isnt supposed to be "running" candidates but endorsing them and campaigning for them. Most of the time candidates join to secure endorsements. SAlt and PSL should be running their own candidates and applying for endorsements. Its extremely frustrating that yall keep griping about DSA instead of actually doing your strategy.
Normally I'm against trots doing entrysm, bnut seeing how milquetoast the elected officials of DSA are, I'm currently leaning in favor of them doing this. DSA needs more marxists in their org.
There's like 6 different Marxist caucuses which have strong power at the conventions. The reason the elected officials don't proclaim Marxism is that there is no and cannot be a mechanism for enforcing they do so. Further if we did institute a rule like that, it would violate the big tent constitution of the org, which I would argue would be a huge mistake right now.
I agree, but then the question is: is it SAlt's intention to make DSA in to a non-big-tent organisation, or do they only want to be active inside DSA?
Has Trot entryism ever ended well for the group they're trying to take over?
Because it seems more like a virus, destroying the cells it wants to take over.
Except for the cells that we would like it to destroy, like the Labor Party
The only thing I can think of is the Militant tendency taking over the Liverpool branch of the Labour Party in the 1980s. They were pretty decent untill they all got expelled. But this literally the only thing I can think of.
SAlt used to be part of the same international organisation as the Militant Tendency in the UK (they've changed name since, I think they're called the SWP nowadays) but they recently split because the English chapter was calling all the shots for all the organisations, unfortunately, the English chapter also has all the money of the intere international..
Let's join the Democrats to push the Democrats left!
Let's join the DSA to push the Democrats left!
Let's join the DSA to push the DSA left!
Yeah SAlt is DemCent. DSA can also ban members for being in an external DemCent org.
SAlts entire deal is that it wants to be a trot demcent caucus in a big socialist workers party. Problem is there is no big socialist workers party in america. They also can't make one because DemCents can't make mass movements just effectively steer existing ones. Fact is DSA isn't a mass movement just an org that could make them.
That's the dream all the Trot microsects have. Except what happens when they do entryism into left groups is they engage in tiresome bullshit and fights for leadership. If they're successful, a lot of the group that they entered leaves, because now their group is Trot and the members didn't enjoy all the bullshit, leaving the Trots in control of the name of an empty group.
I'm perfectly open to asking our local independent politicians associate with a new political party. That's perfectly welcome. But this whole dual membership issue is going to be a major issue.
Im like 9/10 that these members are mostly just envoys to negotiate making a separate party not trying to turn DSA into a party itself.
For sure. I've hung out with some of the local SAlts before and they were cool. I just hope they don't act like people on here.
But this whole dual membership issue is going to be a major issue.
Why? What's the difference with all the tendencies which already exist in DSA like "class unity", "bread and Roses" and so on?
There's already a bunch of trots in my chapter after iso folded which was demcent. They never had dual membership and don't think SAlt members should be holding dual memberships either. They also don't like the ban on DemCents but kind of view this as extremely rude.
But what's the difference between membership of one of those caucusses like "class unity" and "bread and roses" on the one hand and SAlt on the other hand? I don't see why one of those would be rude, and the other one wouldn't be.
Becuase the caucuses would be invested in the power of their parent organization while an external organization would only be tangentially so.
I think the scenario we're trying to avoid is members from another org showing up, voting for the interest of their org, then going back to work for their org.
That's fair, but would you prefer all SAlt members joining DSA and becoming a caucus themselves? They'd be a significant amount od DSA memebrs immediatly if they did that. I'm guessing around 5%
I don't think SAlt should dissolve themselves nationally just to join the DSA nor do I think they ever would. Its seems they just want to more closely cooperate with local dsa chapters.
I don’t think SAlt should dissolve themselves nationally just to join the DSA nor do I think they ever would.
Trots have a history of switching between being a party and a tendency inside another, broader left party. It's not impossible at all. If they start believing that DSA is the new workers party inside the US, then they'll do it, just like they've followed that strategy in every country around the globe.
