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.
The George Floyd protests burned down polices stations, radicalized whole swathes of the youth and had millions talking about abolishing and defunding the police, entryism on the otherhand led to the death of the Bernie movement and manifesting a chilling effect on the rest of the left
Entryism without the creation of a national third party is meaningless idealism, and third partyism is by definition fringe
Have laws changed? Have police budgets been cut? Have murderous cops been brought to justice?
Burning down a police station is meaningless if it doesn't lead to something like the above. Radicalization that doesn't produce any results isn't much to write home about either.
And it's odd to blame Bernie's defeat on entryism when his campaign existed largely because he chose entryism instead of a third-party candidacy.
Burning down a police station is meaningless if it doesn’t lead to something like the above.
Burning down that police station wasn't meaningless to the people who did it and the people who lived under its thumb, and entryism that doesn't produce any results isn’t much to write home about either, radicalization on the otherhand provides the reservoir of energy and manpower required for any mass movement to develop, as we witnessed last summer
And it’s odd to blame Bernie’s defeat on entryism
Bernie's success was in spite of his entryism not because of it, he tapped into something that had been building for decades, and his embrace of entryism over trusting that reservoir of radicalism led to predictable results
when his campaign existed largely because he chose entryism instead of a third-party candidacy.
Then why are you defending an article that advocates for third party entryism, did you not read past the first paragraph?
Burning down that police station was meaningless to the locals, too. It's just a building. They didn't dismantle the police department, they didn't put any serious restrictions on the police department, the police can still kill them with immunity. Burning down the station failed to produce any lasting, material change because the people who make laws still suck. They need to be removed, and realistically that means primarying them.
Then why are you defending an article that advocates for third party entryism
The strategy this DSA article is advocating is running DSA-backed Democrats in Democratic primaries. Whatever you call that, it's a more promising approach than whatever else we've tried.
Burning down that police station was meaningless to the locals, too. It’s just a building. They didn’t dismantle the police department,
Destroying a police headquarters isn't meaningful? Disrupting police organizational capability isn't meaningful? Destruction of police equipment isn't meaningful? You're operating in vague abstractions, when a community burns a police precinct that’s a signal that possibilities outside electoralism exists and that everyday people are willing to take to the street in defiance of state power, THAT'S MEANINGFUL
Rainbow coalition entryist bullshit on the otherhand is not meaningful, and that author is a dumbass for trying to sell this shit all over again, as if it was something never attempted, "take over the Democratic party from inside" definitely a bold NEW strategy that's never been tried before, genius
We saw it collapse last year, and it will collapse again and again, because the Democratic Party doesn't operate around collective politics, its operate on careerist individualism that is disciplined by the donor system and media access politics, you can replace all the dems with socdem DSA members and you still don't get anywhere. Institutions have inertia and momentum and only outside force can shift it to the left
Signals generated by material actions like burning down police stations and flipping cars can't be abstract in the same way campaign promises by elected DSA politicians are
Which wave of mass protests are you talking about here?
Mass protests don't collapse because people didn't "vote enough", their beaten down, dismantled, and subverted, but each new iteration results in larger protests, faster mobilization, and an expanded pool of experienced agitators, which requires the state to invest MORE resources, MORE manpower, and MORE media propaganda to suppress
Electoral mass movements on the otherhand all fall apart on their own terms, according to their own inertia, they aren't beaten down or dismantled, they're captured by the state and then used as a bludgeon against Mass protest movements, this is why they're an inherently inferior form of political organization
Mass protests don’t collapse because people didn’t “vote enough”
But they do collapse. What they accomplish boils down to what they can pressure elected officials to do. And the response of elected officials is at least partly a function of whether those officials come with the priors of AOC or the priors of Nancy Pelosi.
The George Floyd protests burned down polices stations, radicalized whole swathes of the youth and had millions talking about abolishing and defunding the police, entryism on the otherhand led to the death of the Bernie movement and manifesting a chilling effect on the rest of the left
Entryism without the creation of a national third party is meaningless idealism, and third partyism is by definition fringe
Burning down a police station is meaningless if it doesn't lead to something like the above. Radicalization that doesn't produce any results isn't much to write home about either.
And it's odd to blame Bernie's defeat on entryism when his campaign existed largely because he chose entryism instead of a third-party candidacy.
Burning down that police station wasn't meaningless to the people who did it and the people who lived under its thumb, and entryism that doesn't produce any results isn’t much to write home about either, radicalization on the otherhand provides the reservoir of energy and manpower required for any mass movement to develop, as we witnessed last summer
Bernie's success was in spite of his entryism not because of it, he tapped into something that had been building for decades, and his embrace of entryism over trusting that reservoir of radicalism led to predictable results
Then why are you defending an article that advocates for third party entryism, did you not read past the first paragraph?
Burning down that police station was meaningless to the locals, too. It's just a building. They didn't dismantle the police department, they didn't put any serious restrictions on the police department, the police can still kill them with immunity. Burning down the station failed to produce any lasting, material change because the people who make laws still suck. They need to be removed, and realistically that means primarying them.
The strategy this DSA article is advocating is running DSA-backed Democrats in Democratic primaries. Whatever you call that, it's a more promising approach than whatever else we've tried.
Destroying a police headquarters isn't meaningful? Disrupting police organizational capability isn't meaningful? Destruction of police equipment isn't meaningful? You're operating in vague abstractions, when a community burns a police precinct that’s a signal that possibilities outside electoralism exists and that everyday people are willing to take to the street in defiance of state power, THAT'S MEANINGFUL
Rainbow coalition entryist bullshit on the otherhand is not meaningful, and that author is a dumbass for trying to sell this shit all over again, as if it was something never attempted, "take over the Democratic party from inside" definitely a bold NEW strategy that's never been tried before, genius
We saw it collapse last year, and it will collapse again and again, because the Democratic Party doesn't operate around collective politics, its operate on careerist individualism that is disciplined by the donor system and media access politics, you can replace all the dems with socdem DSA members and you still don't get anywhere. Institutions have inertia and momentum and only outside force can shift it to the left
Vague abstractions are "signals" like this. Meaningful, material change is something like defunding the police.
Which wave of mass protests are you talking about here?
Signals generated by material actions like burning down police stations and flipping cars can't be abstract in the same way campaign promises by elected DSA politicians are
Mass protests don't collapse because people didn't "vote enough", their beaten down, dismantled, and subverted, but each new iteration results in larger protests, faster mobilization, and an expanded pool of experienced agitators, which requires the state to invest MORE resources, MORE manpower, and MORE media propaganda to suppress
Electoral mass movements on the otherhand all fall apart on their own terms, according to their own inertia, they aren't beaten down or dismantled, they're captured by the state and then used as a bludgeon against Mass protest movements, this is why they're an inherently inferior form of political organization
But they do collapse. What they accomplish boils down to what they can pressure elected officials to do. And the response of elected officials is at least partly a function of whether those officials come with the priors of AOC or the priors of Nancy Pelosi.