https://twitter.com/unitedworkersoc/status/1371531488450207749

  • EthicalHumanMeat [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    The PSL, for instance, has a higher bar to entry than the DSA. That’s a conscious decision to have a smaller number of members in exchange for more vetting. One easy way to help your socialist party grow is to not require interviews.

    They do that to keep cops, reactionaries, wreckers, and assholes out and to maintain ideological consistency, which is actually important if you want an effective party. A bigger party isn't necessarily a better one. (Note: This doesn't mean that the goal is to keep the party small. It means that the goal is to hold all members of the party to a consistent set of personal and ideological standards, which an org can't do if it's indiscriminate about who it lets in. See: landlords in DSA. [Not that I'm even anti-DSA per se.]) Again, this is what historically successful parties have done. Doing away with ideological standards is not a shortcut to communism.

    It absolutely will in a country as right wing as the U.S.

    How? By what process? Europe is absolutely no closer to revolution now that they have universal healthcare programs.

    • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      They do that to keep cops, reactionaries, wreckers, and assholes out and to maintain ideological consistency, which is actually important if you want an effective party.

      Yes, it's a conscious decision to trade size for all of these benefits. But a party the size of the PSL is ineffective by default; they've struck the wrong balance.

      How? By what process?

      Demonstrating that mass collective action can produce material improvements could catalyze bigger changes in the same direction. There's also the idea that taking the boot off the neck of workers, at least a little bit, can make non-electoral strategies easier.