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.
I never said we should actively exclude anyone. Literally anyone, including multi-millionaires can be part of the movement. But it should be primarily composed of and led by the working class. Im singling out students, academics and PMCs because most socialist organizations are led by these types, and the well-known problems of infighting, constant deliberations, lack of useful action etc arises from that.
You're mistaking a general suggestion for a rigid policy. The never-ending questions of "what is to be done", "how to organize", "what policies should be followed" etc etc ad nauseam that is present in petit bourg controlled orgs and which you are creating now too, dont really arise in working class led orgs that form spontaneously out of need. No one organized the Soviets but the workers themselves.
So take it easy and understand the main point: Communism is the movement of the working class, not the movement of students, intellectuals and radlib PMCs as it actually exists today.
Pretty sure people of all stripes have disagreements about how to run organizations, especially when there's not exactly a blueprint for achieving the organization's goals (and what those goals are might vary considerably from member to member).
You keep coming back to this idea that someone isn't a "real" worker unless they wear overalls and punch a clock at a factory or something. That doesn't make any sense.
Pretty sure people of all stripes have disagreements about how to run organizations,
Working class people spontaneously formed the Soviets and siezed political power in Russia. Meanwhile, you have decades old parties and socialist organizations today that are made up of members who still debate on how to organize, what to do, and end up not doing much at all. The difference is the class composition of these organizations. Organizations made up of working class people and led by them have clear goals of what to do, and how to achieve them. Organizations NOT made up of working class people dont really have any immediate goals, and their long term goals are themselves dependent on the working class.
So students and intellectuals can never be really useful to real commmunist movement. PMCs can be if they completely throw out their petit bourg ideological infection, but the reality is that PMCs tend to side with the ruling class more often than with their own class, kind of like a house n-word phenomenon. This can be fixed, but not by students, academics, lawyers or other petit bourgs "educating" them. The process of class struggle will eventually force people to choose one camp or the other, and this class struggle will be initiated and led by the most advanced sections of the working class (once again : NOT students, intellectuals, petit bourgs etc)
You keep coming back to this idea that someone isn’t a “real” worker unless they wear overalls and punch a clock at a factory or something. That doesn’t make any sense.
I never said we should actively exclude anyone. Literally anyone, including multi-millionaires can be part of the movement. But it should be primarily composed of and led by the working class. Im singling out students, academics and PMCs because most socialist organizations are led by these types, and the well-known problems of infighting, constant deliberations, lack of useful action etc arises from that.
If we're not excluding anyone, why should leadership be reserved for "real" workers?
If someone's good for a leadership position, the fact that they sell their labor in an office is no reason to bar them.
You're mistaking a general suggestion for a rigid policy. The never-ending questions of "what is to be done", "how to organize", "what policies should be followed" etc etc ad nauseam that is present in petit bourg controlled orgs and which you are creating now too, dont really arise in working class led orgs that form spontaneously out of need. No one organized the Soviets but the workers themselves.
So take it easy and understand the main point: Communism is the movement of the working class, not the movement of students, intellectuals and radlib PMCs as it actually exists today.
Pretty sure people of all stripes have disagreements about how to run organizations, especially when there's not exactly a blueprint for achieving the organization's goals (and what those goals are might vary considerably from member to member).
You keep coming back to this idea that someone isn't a "real" worker unless they wear overalls and punch a clock at a factory or something. That doesn't make any sense.
Working class people spontaneously formed the Soviets and siezed political power in Russia. Meanwhile, you have decades old parties and socialist organizations today that are made up of members who still debate on how to organize, what to do, and end up not doing much at all. The difference is the class composition of these organizations. Organizations made up of working class people and led by them have clear goals of what to do, and how to achieve them. Organizations NOT made up of working class people dont really have any immediate goals, and their long term goals are themselves dependent on the working class.
So students and intellectuals can never be really useful to real commmunist movement. PMCs can be if they completely throw out their petit bourg ideological infection, but the reality is that PMCs tend to side with the ruling class more often than with their own class, kind of like a house n-word phenomenon. This can be fixed, but not by students, academics, lawyers or other petit bourgs "educating" them. The process of class struggle will eventually force people to choose one camp or the other, and this class struggle will be initiated and led by the most advanced sections of the working class (once again : NOT students, intellectuals, petit bourgs etc)
Never said this