Too often, DSA is dismissed as a purely social democratic organization, and outsiders discount the communist organizing within it. As a Marxist-Leninist DSA caucus, we reject this narrative. DSA is our political home! We in Red Star are communists who believe that DSA is the most effective place to serve
I mean, tut tutting israel is actually pulling them left- it used to be a lot worse, and there is value in having DSA not be actively zionist. It isn’t like DSA is tut tutting but then also shipping bombs to Israel.
How do you stop the right factions from doing that? Stay out of the fight because the right factions are terrible? Like, 2/5s of the DSA right now is a way of deradicalizing folks back into supporting the democrats. It used to be almost all of the DSA, like how CPUSA is captured by democrats.
I think people are disillusioned by bourgeoise democracy and don’t understand that the DSA has an actual democracy because they see DSA being shitty and assume it is irrevocably captured. The right faction aren’t that connected to the democrats, it is more of a “notice me senpai” relationship where some of the leadership want NGO positions, and the right leadership’s hold of their membership is really tenuous because they aren’t actually invested in organizing their membership, they’re interested in mobilizing to prove that they’re good mobilizers to democrats, putting them at a massive long term disadvantage which we’re exploiting.
See, now that’s a much stronger claim. As I said to another poster, wake me up when you’ve actually won something, that will be good evidence. As it is now, at least without hard numbers, it’s observationally identical to cope. It’s up to you lot, if you are interested, to produce phenomena that could only be the case if you are right and there is a powerful enough radical constituency. Until then, it will plainly be the better answer for the rest of us that we should focus on organizations that don’t require coups to not support genocide.
I think you’re dismissing quantitative changes because you haven’t seen qualitative changes yet. I understand wanting to wait for qualitative changes to not be skeptical, but as Marxists we also understand that qualitative changes are an accumulation of quantitative changes, and there is very clear evidence of quantitative changes.
How is failing by a narrower margin not pulling them left if it’s people voting?
If ten people vote for some leftist proposal and it fails, but then next year 20 people vote for some leftist proposal and it fails…is that not pulling that group to the left?
Wake me up when something, even the slightest pittance, is actually achieved in the DSA’s policy, because the DSA as an organization has not moved left until its policy is affected.
dialectical materialism posits that qualitative changes occur through the accumulation of quantitative changes- for example, adding grains of sand will eventually produce a pile of sand- I think this runs contrary to what they’re trying to argue though, so maybe I’m incorrect in what they’re referencing.
It’s moving left though? Certainly not fast enough to meet this revolutionary moment but it is.
How? In that it verbally tut-tuts Israel?
The less tut-tutty stuff barely failed, which I would call progress, it sucks that that is where it is at but movement is happening.
It sounds like you haven’t pulled them left at all but failed by a narrower margin at pulling them left at all.
I mean, tut tutting israel is actually pulling them left- it used to be a lot worse, and there is value in having DSA not be actively zionist. It isn’t like DSA is tut tutting but then also shipping bombs to Israel.
The DSA is tut-tutting Israel and then campaigning for the Dems, who are shipping bombs to Israel.
How do you stop the right factions from doing that? Stay out of the fight because the right factions are terrible? Like, 2/5s of the DSA right now is a way of deradicalizing folks back into supporting the democrats. It used to be almost all of the DSA, like how CPUSA is captured by democrats.
I think people are disillusioned by bourgeoise democracy and don’t understand that the DSA has an actual democracy because they see DSA being shitty and assume it is irrevocably captured. The right faction aren’t that connected to the democrats, it is more of a “notice me senpai” relationship where some of the leadership want NGO positions, and the right leadership’s hold of their membership is really tenuous because they aren’t actually invested in organizing their membership, they’re interested in mobilizing to prove that they’re good mobilizers to democrats, putting them at a massive long term disadvantage which we’re exploiting.
See, now that’s a much stronger claim. As I said to another poster, wake me up when you’ve actually won something, that will be good evidence. As it is now, at least without hard numbers, it’s observationally identical to cope. It’s up to you lot, if you are interested, to produce phenomena that could only be the case if you are right and there is a powerful enough radical constituency. Until then, it will plainly be the better answer for the rest of us that we should focus on organizations that don’t require coups to not support genocide.
I think you’re dismissing quantitative changes because you haven’t seen qualitative changes yet. I understand wanting to wait for qualitative changes to not be skeptical, but as Marxists we also understand that qualitative changes are an accumulation of quantitative changes, and there is very clear evidence of quantitative changes.
How is failing by a narrower margin not pulling them left if it’s people voting?
If ten people vote for some leftist proposal and it fails, but then next year 20 people vote for some leftist proposal and it fails…is that not pulling that group to the left?
Wake me up when something, even the slightest pittance, is actually achieved in the DSA’s policy, because the DSA as an organization has not moved left until its policy is affected.
Did they not take a slightly stronger anti Zionist stance?
Their statement was a little different, the potential policy differences were gutted.
That’s just a minor quantitative change. There’s no qualitative change.
What does that mean?
dialectical materialism posits that qualitative changes occur through the accumulation of quantitative changes- for example, adding grains of sand will eventually produce a pile of sand- I think this runs contrary to what they’re trying to argue though, so maybe I’m incorrect in what they’re referencing.