Some recent critiques levied at DSA's organizational strategies peddle in an aesthetic-radicalism that risks distracting the working-class from organizing itself into a disciplined political force.
It's more likely to happen than a revolution for sure, and it's probably more likely to happen than an approach relying on organized labor, too.
Everything's a long shot, but we have some DSA-endorsed people in office already, and there are historical examples of legislation that's eased the burden on workers.
The goal is a worker's state. There's evidence that you can make real progress towards this by winning elections -- look at Venezuela and Bolivia. And seeing as it's totally unrealistic to expect a revolution any time soon, and only marginally more realistic to expect an unprecedented (in America) level of organized labor power that leads to a solution, the many problems with electoral politics seem by far the most manageable.
No historical legislation easing the burden on workers has made it easier to achieve socialism.
If you take the boot off people's necks -- even just a little bit -- you've done two things to get us closer to socialism. First, you show people political improvements are possible (this is huge in a country that's so pervasively cynical about politics). Second, you give people more time/money/protection for further political activity.
And all of that is on top of the immediate material gain of whatever the "take the boot off the neck" improvement is by itself.
Venezuela and Bolivia aren't worker's states, but they're making progress in that direction, and they've done so despite significant opposition. They're not perfectly analogous to the U.S. in 2021, but they're probably a closer comparison than Cuba in 1959 or Russia in 1917.
I'm not denying that there are problems with electoral politics. You bring up plenty of good points. But the bottom line is that the other paths to socialism are even less likely to come to fruition.
When have the ruling interests really been scared of the US left? It hasn’t been often.
You know when they were most scared of the left? Under FDR. They didn't organize the Business Plot against the Black Panthers; they just shot them.
Of come on, FDR did not strike fundamental fear into the capitalist class.
They planned a coup. They planned to dismiss any pretense of democratic government. That's far more serious than domestic repression (which predated the Business Plot and would have continued after).
I'm fine with non-electoral organizing and action. We should be pursuing every available avenue because no one knows for sure how to build socialism in the imperial core. What I oppose is dismissing the most visible and effective electoral strategy. It's not great, but it's a better bet than anything else.
And didn’t try to execute it as they could see he wasn’t a fundamental threat to their interests.
What stopped the coup was the guy they recruited to lead it -- Smedley Butler. He blew the whistle on the whole thing because he had developed strong anti-imperialist politics by that point in his life. It wasn't shelved, it got revealed.
And yes, plotting to forcibly overthrow the President of the United States of America is a far more serious reaction than persecuting anarchists in the 1920s or Maoists in the 1960s. It's the difference between going after the most powerful person in the country and going after fringe radicals.
Entryism into the Democratic Party
making an independent socialist political party
We've tried both -- it's basically the DSA/Bernie approach vs. the PSL approach. I don't see any argument that the PSL approach has produced more results by any metric.
It's more likely to happen than a revolution for sure, and it's probably more likely to happen than an approach relying on organized labor, too.
Everything's a long shot, but we have some DSA-endorsed people in office already, and there are historical examples of legislation that's eased the burden on workers.
deleted by creator
The goal is a worker's state. There's evidence that you can make real progress towards this by winning elections -- look at Venezuela and Bolivia. And seeing as it's totally unrealistic to expect a revolution any time soon, and only marginally more realistic to expect an unprecedented (in America) level of organized labor power that leads to a solution, the many problems with electoral politics seem by far the most manageable.
If you take the boot off people's necks -- even just a little bit -- you've done two things to get us closer to socialism. First, you show people political improvements are possible (this is huge in a country that's so pervasively cynical about politics). Second, you give people more time/money/protection for further political activity.
And all of that is on top of the immediate material gain of whatever the "take the boot off the neck" improvement is by itself.
deleted by creator
Venezuela and Bolivia aren't worker's states, but they're making progress in that direction, and they've done so despite significant opposition. They're not perfectly analogous to the U.S. in 2021, but they're probably a closer comparison than Cuba in 1959 or Russia in 1917.
I'm not denying that there are problems with electoral politics. You bring up plenty of good points. But the bottom line is that the other paths to socialism are even less likely to come to fruition.
You know when they were most scared of the left? Under FDR. They didn't organize the Business Plot against the Black Panthers; they just shot them.
deleted by creator
They planned a coup. They planned to dismiss any pretense of democratic government. That's far more serious than domestic repression (which predated the Business Plot and would have continued after).
I'm fine with non-electoral organizing and action. We should be pursuing every available avenue because no one knows for sure how to build socialism in the imperial core. What I oppose is dismissing the most visible and effective electoral strategy. It's not great, but it's a better bet than anything else.
deleted by creator
What stopped the coup was the guy they recruited to lead it -- Smedley Butler. He blew the whistle on the whole thing because he had developed strong anti-imperialist politics by that point in his life. It wasn't shelved, it got revealed.
And yes, plotting to forcibly overthrow the President of the United States of America is a far more serious reaction than persecuting anarchists in the 1920s or Maoists in the 1960s. It's the difference between going after the most powerful person in the country and going after fringe radicals.
We've tried both -- it's basically the DSA/Bernie approach vs. the PSL approach. I don't see any argument that the PSL approach has produced more results by any metric.