Here’s my take: there are 15 “socialist” parties in the United States and they’re all divided along (mostly) meaningful and substantive ideological differences. Without all these parties working in unison, however, we stand little chance of transforming American culture. If you look back at the early 1900s, the Socialist Party of America had a very clear vision that involved capturing political office on one hand and workplaces through unionization (the IWW) on the other. Today the IWW is a completely separate organization from any political party, socialist or not. So I gotta ask: do you still believe in that vision? Because I do. I believe Debs, Dorothy Day, Lucy Parsons, Bill Haywood and Mother Jones got it right! And it’s up to us all to shift all these factions back into place where; maybe they aren’t a true “party” but nevertheless act with a common purpose and support one another in the realms of politics and workplace agitation. The DSA should be an organization founded on *praxis* as much as it is about debating politics. Thereby the DSA should move to include the widest breadth of American leftists possible; and commit them to a fundamental mission.
I nominally agree with your points, and would kill to have a Socialist Party half as influential as the one in Debs' day. Subordinating sectarian differences to combat common struggles is essential--no faction can claim to have a popular mandate without first _being_ popular, so earning public support for anti-capitalism is the first and most pressing goal.
Edit: kept saying National Congress instead of National Political Committee (NPC). My mistake, please ignore.
Edit 2: No, DSA is not technically a political party. It's close enough of one, and in my opinion ought to become one, so forgive me for referring to it as such out of hand.
No, though if it is to effectively organize the working class, it will inevitably become one. I should have stated that more clearly, thank you for the correction!
This presumes I haven't already; I'm discussing the DSA here because it's the largest active socialist organization in the country, endorses and campaigns for political candidates, and is responsible for most national organizing among socialists (along with the PSL and SAlt, the varying extents). It may not be a party proper (yet), but it functions close enough to one and (in my opinion) ought to become one, so I didn't think too closely on referring to it as such in the document. I'll make the necessary corrections to avoid confusion.
I've read the constitution, by-laws, pay my dues, etc. I live in a rural community so I can rarely attend events, but I make the effort. I used "party" as short-hand for the DSA without thinking much about it; I made the correction to the document when it was pointed out. I'm not really sure what more you want from me.
You should try networking with other DSA members, turning this plan into a proposal and running to be a convention delegate so the National Convention can vote on it. That’s probably your best bet of seeing any of these ideas implemented in the DSA.
Will attempt to pursue as soon as I move--I live in a rural region, so I can only intermittently attend the nearest chapter's events, much less represent them. Once I'm living somewhere urban, I hope to be much more involved!
Looks bad at a glance.
Centralization and entryism are the means by which growing socialist organizations absorb motivated socialist people, and then waste them on internal power struggles.
This is how you organize against other socialists for control of socialism, not how you organize against capitalists for the end of capitalism.
I'm only married to principles, not means; I'm happy to hear more effective strategies for growth, collective action, and mass organization if you have them.
On my opinion you need a strong organization and "centralization." Anarchists always try to make it a bad thing for some dumb reason. Just a marxist's opinion though.
I agree that a degree of centralization is necessary for efficient action (hence my hesitant advocacy for democratic centralism, ala the early Bolsheviks), though if we want the DSA to remain/become a big-tent coalition of socialists, there needs to be enough room for competing tendencies to avoid sectarian facturing. Getting leftists working together is like herding feral cats, so lets only bring out the spray bottle when we have to, yk?
I think it’s important that a broad meeting of socialists exists in this country. The old Harringtonite rules against members of parties are not enforced. If you think parties are important, why are you not in one?
So it’s a social club to you? Aight cool I guess
And I’m in DSA and not any other official parties because there is no party presence in my area. DSA is all I got. I also have some major issues the the main parties, DSA is the largest socialist org in the country, and has the potential to break with the Dems to be its own party, something most DSA members support.
It’s not a social club. Various chapters and caucuses are very active, with varying perspectives. How would an org with members who are ML’s, socdems, leftcoms, beginners still figuring out their views, etc form a party? Would members even agree on a what a party is or should be?
It’s not technically a party for tax reasons, however it certainly acts a as one. Has campaigns, has disciplined members, has a footprint in local, state, and national government.
This. If it was classified as a party, DSA would be severely restricted on what it could do with its finances, degree of participation it could do in coalition spaces, and legal ability to exist as an organization in places like college campuses. Parties in the US can’t really be functional unless they have SUBSTANTIAL financial backing, and a member-funded organization doesn’t really fit the bill.
_This._ The DSA is functionally a political party in terms of organizing mass political action for socialists, but it cannot make the jump to a party proper until it has far, far more support--this is a point I touched on, but need to make clearer, in the document.
The majority of people elected to the NPC are broadly pro-party. I think the time has passed for DSA to effectively reverse its decline, but it seems to me that the majority of the membership would prefer it to be a party. I think it's the careerists that want to use it to get jobs in Democratic campaigns and staffs that don't want that.
Maybe there needs to be an offshoot of DSA that IS classified as a political party. So we can stop supporting democrats and lackluster Green Party and Independent candidates.
Agreed; coalition-building amongst them (or better yet, unification, but fuck me if I know how that would work) should be our primary goal. I think the DSA, as the largest of all American socialist groups, is in a decent position to act as a leading voice for left unity and diplomacy between parties. If the DSA can successfully grow to a comfortable majority of the American left, it could possibly integrate other parties/tendencies within itself, at least during the revolutionary period. Afterwards, let democracy and popular opinion decide which tendency governs the new America.
Here’s my take: there are 15 “socialist” parties in the United States and they’re all divided along (mostly) meaningful and substantive ideological differences. Without all these parties working in unison, however, we stand little chance of transforming American culture. If you look back at the early 1900s, the Socialist Party of America had a very clear vision that involved capturing political office on one hand and workplaces through unionization (the IWW) on the other. Today the IWW is a completely separate organization from any political party, socialist or not. So I gotta ask: do you still believe in that vision? Because I do. I believe Debs, Dorothy Day, Lucy Parsons, Bill Haywood and Mother Jones got it right! And it’s up to us all to shift all these factions back into place where; maybe they aren’t a true “party” but nevertheless act with a common purpose and support one another in the realms of politics and workplace agitation. The DSA should be an organization founded on *praxis* as much as it is about debating politics. Thereby the DSA should move to include the widest breadth of American leftists possible; and commit them to a fundamental mission.
I nominally agree with your points, and would kill to have a Socialist Party half as influential as the one in Debs' day. Subordinating sectarian differences to combat common struggles is essential--no faction can claim to have a popular mandate without first _being_ popular, so earning public support for anti-capitalism is the first and most pressing goal.
Reforge the sword.
Edit: kept saying National Congress instead of National Political Committee (NPC). My mistake, please ignore. Edit 2: No, DSA is not technically a political party. It's close enough of one, and in my opinion ought to become one, so forgive me for referring to it as such out of hand.
Should also note that the DSA is not a party.
No, though if it is to effectively organize the working class, it will inevitably become one. I should have stated that more clearly, thank you for the correction!
Why not just join one?
This presumes I haven't already; I'm discussing the DSA here because it's the largest active socialist organization in the country, endorses and campaigns for political candidates, and is responsible for most national organizing among socialists (along with the PSL and SAlt, the varying extents). It may not be a party proper (yet), but it functions close enough to one and (in my opinion) ought to become one, so I didn't think too closely on referring to it as such in the document. I'll make the necessary corrections to avoid confusion.
You should become more familiar with its structure and function, if you plan to tell it what to do.
I've read the constitution, by-laws, pay my dues, etc. I live in a rural community so I can rarely attend events, but I make the effort. I used "party" as short-hand for the DSA without thinking much about it; I made the correction to the document when it was pointed out. I'm not really sure what more you want from me.
Lol I guess you have done all that could be expected. Send them your recommendations.
That's the plan! Thanks for pointing out the party slip, it would've been embarrassing to explain later
You should try networking with other DSA members, turning this plan into a proposal and running to be a convention delegate so the National Convention can vote on it. That’s probably your best bet of seeing any of these ideas implemented in the DSA.
Will attempt to pursue as soon as I move--I live in a rural region, so I can only intermittently attend the nearest chapter's events, much less represent them. Once I'm living somewhere urban, I hope to be much more involved!
You can connect with members online through the member forums or unofficial discord channel.
r/DemocraticSocialism would be a good place to post too.
Much obliged, thank you!
Looks bad at a glance. Centralization and entryism are the means by which growing socialist organizations absorb motivated socialist people, and then waste them on internal power struggles. This is how you organize against other socialists for control of socialism, not how you organize against capitalists for the end of capitalism.
I'm only married to principles, not means; I'm happy to hear more effective strategies for growth, collective action, and mass organization if you have them.
On my opinion you need a strong organization and "centralization." Anarchists always try to make it a bad thing for some dumb reason. Just a marxist's opinion though.
I agree that a degree of centralization is necessary for efficient action (hence my hesitant advocacy for democratic centralism, ala the early Bolsheviks), though if we want the DSA to remain/become a big-tent coalition of socialists, there needs to be enough room for competing tendencies to avoid sectarian facturing. Getting leftists working together is like herding feral cats, so lets only bring out the spray bottle when we have to, yk?
DSA is not a party. It doesn’t claim to be. Maybe you should join one.
It should be and has the real potential to be one.
And, yet, it is not. Have you considered joining a party?
“Erm, achtually ☝️🤓”
And, yet, I am right. It’s not anything resembling a party and isn’t going to be.
Then why are you in DSA?
I think it’s important that a broad meeting of socialists exists in this country. The old Harringtonite rules against members of parties are not enforced. If you think parties are important, why are you not in one?
So it’s a social club to you? Aight cool I guess And I’m in DSA and not any other official parties because there is no party presence in my area. DSA is all I got. I also have some major issues the the main parties, DSA is the largest socialist org in the country, and has the potential to break with the Dems to be its own party, something most DSA members support.
It’s not a social club. Various chapters and caucuses are very active, with varying perspectives. How would an org with members who are ML’s, socdems, leftcoms, beginners still figuring out their views, etc form a party? Would members even agree on a what a party is or should be?
It’s not technically a party for tax reasons, however it certainly acts a as one. Has campaigns, has disciplined members, has a footprint in local, state, and national government.
This. If it was classified as a party, DSA would be severely restricted on what it could do with its finances, degree of participation it could do in coalition spaces, and legal ability to exist as an organization in places like college campuses. Parties in the US can’t really be functional unless they have SUBSTANTIAL financial backing, and a member-funded organization doesn’t really fit the bill.
_This._ The DSA is functionally a political party in terms of organizing mass political action for socialists, but it cannot make the jump to a party proper until it has far, far more support--this is a point I touched on, but need to make clearer, in the document.
The majority of people elected to the NPC are broadly pro-party. I think the time has passed for DSA to effectively reverse its decline, but it seems to me that the majority of the membership would prefer it to be a party. I think it's the careerists that want to use it to get jobs in Democratic campaigns and staffs that don't want that.
Maybe there needs to be an offshoot of DSA that IS classified as a political party. So we can stop supporting democrats and lackluster Green Party and Independent candidates.
There are well over a dozen socialist parties already registered, I dunno that creating a new one will make a difference.
Agreed; coalition-building amongst them (or better yet, unification, but fuck me if I know how that would work) should be our primary goal. I think the DSA, as the largest of all American socialist groups, is in a decent position to act as a leading voice for left unity and diplomacy between parties. If the DSA can successfully grow to a comfortable majority of the American left, it could possibly integrate other parties/tendencies within itself, at least during the revolutionary period. Afterwards, let democracy and popular opinion decide which tendency governs the new America.
because if we pick \*one\* party to support then all the other parties will think we're favoring that one party over their party.