Democratic Socialists of America

[grooverider]

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I am quite new here (or at least a lurker).

What do people think of them?

While I have been a "member" (in that I pay them a sum every year) for 2 years, I have only done so with the hope to spur, at the very least, a social democratic basis for the transition into a real democratic socialism. Their platform and policies are European style social democratic, and Harrington, upon its founding, said that this route was the only realistic road to socialism.

But they are very sympathetic with staying within the Democratic party, in creating a progressive part of it. They are not revolutionary and show no revolutionary intentions. Reading their pamphlet reads just like reading a Democratic party pamphlet.

While a social democracy would be much better than the current corporate-welfare state we have now, it seems we'd be stuck in that system the same way the Europeans are stuck in their systems of social democracies.

The question, then, is, at least within any of our lifetimes, is a social democracy (Galbraith-style) worth the compromise, based on the argument that it's seems to be the only possible compromise?

Is international socialism dead or only just reviving? In answering this, I ask people to consider it from the political climate of America, since the DSA is an American organization that is probably one of the largest, if not the largest "leftist" organization, in America.

[Terminator X]

When I was in college, I did some work with them, but quickly realized they were full of shit and only contacted me when they wanted money. I don't think you'll get much sympathy for them on this site, since they are far from revolutionary, and barely what could be considered "leftist."

Also, I'm curious on what figures you are basing your assertion that they are the largest leftist organization in America - I never hear anything about them, to be quite honest. They haven't had a presence at any of the rallies I've attended recently. There are plenty of other left political parties in the US that are more deserving of your time and money (PSL, ISO, SPUSA, to name a few). It all depends on your ideology - what are your politics? Do you agree with the DSA's social democratic/reformist platform? Do you even consider yourself a revolutionary leftist?

(And to answer your question, no, I don't think a social democracy is worth the compromise, because that's simply code for rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic that is capitalism.)

[grooverider]

I am also part of the ISO, and much more active in that, but have been doing some organizing work for the past 2 years and suddenly realized (and fear) that revolution is next to impossible. Capitalism adapts itself, and Bernstein might be right that it does, while Luxemburg's analysis might be inaccurate.

The DSA is more "mainstream", I think, seeing as they have the backing of big mainstream names like Cornel West and Barbara Ehrenreich.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Who the hell let you into the ISO while you haven't broken with a reformist group that supports the Democrats? Not to be rude or anything, but that goes against our core politics.

[graymouser]

The DSA is a large mailing list for social democrats and progressives; it does not assert itself much as an organization. You'll see a DSA banner dusted off maybe for labor day but for the most part it's a very disconnected group that has a lower public profile than groups less than a tenth its size. If you're going to join a group at least pick one that matters.

[grooverider]

Who the hell let you into the ISO while you haven't broken with a reformist group that supports the Democrats? Not to be rude or anything, but that goes against our core politics.

I started with ISO and I'm still a revolutionary. The only difference is that I'm not caught up in fantasies like a lot of people.

[Q]

I started with ISO and I'm still a revolutionary. The only difference is that I'm not caught up in fantasies like a lot of people.

So, what "realistic" politics do you adhere to then, concretely?

[DaringMehring]

I started with ISO and I'm still a revolutionary. The only difference is that I'm not caught up in fantasies like a lot of people.

Revolution is not a fantasy. What happened in North America in 1776? France 1794? Paris 1871? Russia 1917? China 1949? Etc. etc. Egypt, Tunisia today. Come on!

Believing that revolution is a nice idea but not something that can be worked for or helped based on practical activity, is a clear sign that you don't have a grasp of history and instead buy into the bourgeoisie's lies about revolution.

So today there isn't a revolution in USA, maybe not tomorrow either. So? 1776 came after decades of foment and preparation. If you believe in revolution, then you need to work for it. Otherwise you're just a political slime, who wants to come in and hijack a situation that you did not understand nor help to achieve. "Well, its nice the workers are finally rebelling, I never thought they would actually do it but apparently they did, but don't you know I've been a revolutionary all along so give me some cred."

DSA is exactly where someone with those views belongs.

[Qayin]

more sectarian shit. If you wanna join the DSA more power to you, attack at all angles

[flobdob]

I started with ISO and I'm still a revolutionary. The only difference is that I'm not caught up in fantasies like a lot of people.

You're a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a group which believes capitalism can be reformed into a soft, friendly face which benefits everyone. A group that believes if you just keep electing Democrats, US imperialism can be neutered and made benevolent and kind.

And other people are the ones caught up in fantasies?!?!

[Qayin]

And other people are the ones caught up in fantasies?!?!

Dude just stop. The US is a capitalist shit hole its not getting any better with this sectarian nonsense

[flobdob]

Sectarian to challenge reformism? In a discussion on an internet forum?

Why am I not suprised that someone who cheerleads the Libyan "rebels" would be the first to rush in defence of the apologists for the fucking Democrats...

[Qayin]

Why am I not suprised that someone who cheerleads the Libyan "rebels" would be the first to rush in defence of the apologists for the fucking Democrats... Your pretty hardcore dude your so pure. Just what we need to overthrow capitalism. Who needs the masses when we have the 20th century to argue about? Fuck any calls for social change if its not pure! Get some new priorities man.

[Q]

more sectarian shit. If you wanna join the DSA more power to you, attack at all angles


Dude just stop. The US is a capitalist shit hole its not getting any better with this sectarian nonsense

Political critique has nothing to do in itself with sectarian behaviour. See my blogpost (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1465) for a more helpful definition.

[PhoenixAsh]

Why am I not suprised that someone who cheerleads the Libyan "rebels" would be the first to rush in defence of the apologists for the fucking Democrats...

Stop that shit right fucking now! Keep it out of threads NOT about fucking Libya.



Political critique has nothing to do in itself with sectarian behaviour. See my blogpost (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1465) for a more helpful definition.

^^ This


****

Democratic Socialism is perhap not what we believe is a viable alternative but right now...I think we should perhaps not alienate everybody immediately and denounce them.

They are not social democrats eventhough they may feel naturally drawn to that position...its out job to draw them to our position...if somebody seems to think social democracy is the only viable option we change their minds.

THats what we do...

[graymouser]

Democratic Socialism is perhap not what we believe is a viable alternative but right now...I think we should perhaps not alienate everybody immediately and denounce them.

They are not social democrats eventhough they may feel naturally drawn to that position...its out job to draw them to our position...if somebody seems to think social democracy is the only viable option we change their minds.

THats what we do...
That's fine and all but when people talk about social democracy we have to be honest about what it is and what its limitations are. The DSA is really just a big mailing list, it's not a political party in the sense that the mass social democratic parties of Europe are. And its practice in the US is mostly in supporting the Democrats as a "left wing of the possible," which means there is no question of class independence.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The main political enemy of the left and of the US working class today is the Democratic Party.The DP has a long history of subverting, coopting, and neutralising struggles.The DP has been called "the graveyard of social struggles".

I went though something of a DSA stage myself, I was on their mailing list for years and I read some of Micheal Harrington's books. For better or worse that was my first introduction to socialist theory.Since then I've learned a lot more about Marxism and revolutionary thought.One of the most important things I've learned is that while the GOP is vile the Dems are far more insidious. Their purpose is to lower class consciousness, tie the working class intro illusions that Obama or some other capitalist politician will provide a way out.

People like Harrington, the DSA, Dennis Kucicinich, or Progressive Demiocrats are a major part of this problem.It will never be possible to convert the DP to a working class party, unlike at least European soc dems it has never even been based on a tradition of worker's struggles. To critique and point out how destructive "progressives" are is not being sectarian.However I think we should be very tolerant and patient with people who hold these views. I did so at one time myself and for a lot of people looking for a way out this is the only path they know.It may be more helpful to patiently explain why social democrats are mistaken and even harmful instead of slamming them a la the Sparts.

[grooverider]

You're a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a group which believes capitalism can be reformed into a soft, friendly face which benefits everyone. A group that believes if you just keep electing Democrats, US imperialism can be neutered and made benevolent and kind.

And other people are the ones caught up in fantasies?!?!

I pay them $20 a year with the hope of helping, though very little, influence mainstream politics. I never take part in any of their events or go to any of their meetings (mostly because I have no time).

I am a member of the ISO. I believe revolution can come and will come and that it's a necessary condition for socialism.

But I also know that it won't come easy, nor does it look like it will come any time soon. For the revolution to be successful, and subsequently socialism to be successful, there needs to be massive increases in government spending on infrastructure, research and education. Socialism depends upon the changes of the forces of production, with the political economy (superstructure) extended from those forces. But, distinctions superfluous, the bottom-line is that the more efficient, most environmental, most economical productive forces will be needed for socialism.

This is why I (sometimes) vote Democrat (except for whenever there's a socialist running in my district), since they are more likely to increase spending on important things necessary for the post-revolutionary society.

I still organize, go to rallies, and host/go speak at events in order to help spread socialism. But the truth is that socialism must come from at least two fronts and we should not be caught up in the society-to-come when our very own society is not completely ready for the society we envision. This is for many reasons, mostly political, but also economical and technological. We should work within the system as well as outside of it.

[grooverider]

Revolution is not a fantasy. What happened in North America in 1776? France 1794? Paris 1871? Russia 1917? China 1949? Etc. etc. Egypt, Tunisia today. Come on!

Believing that revolution is a nice idea but not something that can be worked for or helped based on practical activity, is a clear sign that you don't have a grasp of history and instead buy into the bourgeoisie's lies about revolution.

So today there isn't a revolution in USA, maybe not tomorrow either. So? 1776 came after decades of foment and preparation. If you believe in revolution, then you need to work for it. Otherwise you're just a political slime, who wants to come in and hijack a situation that you did not understand nor help to achieve. "Well, its nice the workers are finally rebelling, I never thought they would actually do it but apparently they did, but don't you know I've been a revolutionary all along so give me some cred."

DSA is exactly where someone with those views belongs.
This is exactly why socialists get such a bad reputation, even among people who try to organize. You react in the strongest, most negative way when you didn't even give me a chance to explain. Being an organizer, I'm used to and always prepare for the most negative possible reactions to my statements, but being in a left-wing forum, I'd expect revolutionaries to attempt to understand others more.

What a shame that socialists, the ones professing a brother and sisterhood of mankind, can sometimes be the ones least willing to do something so central to the age-old claim that we can cooperate for the better of all: try to understand one another.

[DaringMehring]

This is exactly why socialists get such a bad reputation, even among people who try to organize. You react in the strongest, most negative way when you didn't even give me a chance to explain. Being an organizer, I'm used to and always prepare for the most negative possible reactions to my statements, but being in a left-wing forum, I'd expect revolutionaries to attempt to understand others more.

What a shame that socialists, the ones professing a brother and sisterhood of mankind, can sometimes be the ones least willing to do something so central to the age-old claim that we can cooperate for the better of all: try to understand one another.

You're on a forum called "RevLeft," appealing to me as a "revolutionary," and yet, you say you "suddenly realized that revolution is next to impossible," call revolution a fantasy, say Bernstein may have been right, and promote the "only possible compromise" in your mind, social democracy.

You say I should try to understand you more? Why should anyone try to understand your muddle? It's the same anti-revolutionary mindset that has been infesting the petit-bourgeoisie and demoralized proletarians for over a hundred years.

[Dumb]

Another problem with leftists supporting reformists - a problem that gets overlooked a lot, in my opinion - is that the more leftists support reformism, the more reformism gets slapped with the "socialist" label. That scares would-be reformists out of reformism, and makes true socialism look even "whackier" to a lot of people on the outside looking in - even people we might be able to win over otherwise.

Overton Window, if you will.

[grooverider]

You're on a forum called "RevLeft," appealing to me as a "revolutionary," and yet, you say you "suddenly realized that revolution is next to impossible," call revolution a fantasy, say Bernstein may have been right, and promote the "only possible compromise" in your mind, social democracy.

You say I should try to understand you more? Why should anyone try to understand your muddle? It's the same anti-revolutionary mindset that has been infesting the petit-bourgeoisie and demoralized proletarians for over a hundred years.
Revolution is next to an impossibility at the moment because, first, Bernstein was right when he said capitalism adapts itself. Second, in organizing you will find it extremely hard to get people to care about other people's plights. There needs to be an issue that effects a group enough for them to be willing to form alliances with other groups. The welfare state does a lot to make it just not bad enough for them to revolt, and the system is set up in such a way that people can't afford or aren't willing to risk revolting--it is modern wage slavery, and the avenues to revolt have been either made illegal or the capitalists have adapted themselves to it. For example, several factories nowadays have "sit in rooms", effectively removing the effectiveness of that tactic. Slowly, the only alternative becomes the open disobedience of the laws, a risk most people aren't willing to take. And finally, the media and the rest of the superstructure is set up in such a way that constantly tells everyone what to believe, namely that they should not revolt, that there really isn't much hope, and it's much easier watching that fucking Prince's wedding than paying attention to 60 hours of unpaid overtime in a factory in Sri Lanka.

Which is why it seems that one effective means, and perhaps the more effective one, is slow changes from the top, while we socialists spend our time slowly trying to educate those that feel hopeless. Which is even harder: getting people to understand what socialism is takes several meetings. It's a slow process, awakening class consciousness in people.

I'm not saying revolution is impossible. In organizing, I have seen the hopeless form hope, as the movement gains momentum. But it's very shortlived--soon the debt and lack of means of subsistence catches up to them, and people have to go back to everyday life.

Which is why fine tuning the welfare state would lead to more opportunity for revolt.

Now, ask yourself, why has the entire left-wing movement been such a failure in modern times? Is it not, at the very least, because of what I said so far? But also, is it not because of your lack of any attempt to try to understand even fellow leftists? Suddenly, you label someone as weak, non-purist, not committed to something you believe in, when in fact you will realize that there needs to be a highlight of commonalities, and not differences. When did you become so wise that you think you are obligated to label anyone that you didn't even attempt to understand "petit-bourgeoisie"? Has this gotten you anywhere?

[grooverider]

Another problem with leftists supporting reformists - a problem that gets overlooked a lot, in my opinion - is that the more leftists support reformism, the more reformism gets slapped with the "socialist" label. That scares would-be reformists out of reformism, and makes true socialism look even "whackier" to a lot of people on the outside looking in - even people we might be able to win over otherwise.

Overton Window, if you will.
This is a very good point and a huge concern I have many of the times. But you needn't support reformism in the name of socialism, even if that is your intention.

[DaringMehring]

Revolution is next to an impossibility at the moment because, first, Bernstein was right when he said capitalism adapts itself. Second, in organizing you will find it extremely hard to get people to care about other people's plights. There needs to be an issue that effects a group enough for them to be willing to form alliances with other groups. The welfare state does a lot to make it just not bad enough for them to revolt, and the system is set up in such a way that people can't afford or aren't willing to risk revolting--it is modern wage slavery, and the avenues to revolt have been either made illegal or the capitalists have adapted themselves to it. For example, several factories nowadays have "sit in rooms", effectively removing the effectiveness of that tactic. Slowly, the only alternative becomes the open disobedience of the laws, a risk most people aren't willing to take. And finally, the media and the rest of the superstructure is set up in such a way that constantly tells everyone what to believe, namely that they should not revolt, that there really isn't much hope, and it's much easier watching that fucking Prince's wedding than paying attention to 60 hours of unpaid overtime in a factory in Sri Lanka.


What a mish-mash! Exploitation something that Western workers don't have to think of if they don't want to; something that only happens in Sri Lanka? You think that because capitalists learn they are invincible?

Revolution is a material necessity. Have you ever studied the history of the labor movement? Why do you think the 1930s happened? "open disobedience of the laws, a risk most people aren't willing to take" -- why in the 1930s were there mass illegal actions all over the country, eg the Flint sit-down strike?



Which is why it seems that one effective means, and perhaps the more effective one, is slow changes from the top,


The emancipation of the working class must the be act of the working class -- Marx

The emancipation of the working class will be the act of the bourgeoisie -- You



while we socialists spend our time slowly trying to educate those that feel hopeless. Which is even harder: getting people to understand what socialism is takes several meetings. It's a slow process, awakening class consciousness in people.


Goodness forbid! Who would have thought the revolutionary road was long and difficult?



I'm not saying revolution is impossible. In organizing, I have seen the hopeless form hope, as the movement gains momentum. But it's very shortlived--soon the debt and lack of means of subsistence catches up to them, and people have to go back to everyday life.


"I'm not saying revolution is impossible, I'm saying revolution is impossible."



Which is why fine tuning the welfare state would lead to more opportunity for revolt.


I'm sure the bourgeoisie will fine-tune their state to lead to more opportunity for revolt.



Now, ask yourself, why has the entire left-wing movement been such a failure in modern times? Is it not, at the very least, because of what I said so far?


No it is not, "at the very least," or at all.



But also, is it not because of your lack of any attempt to try to understand even fellow leftists? Suddenly, you label someone as weak, non-purist, not committed to something you believe in, when in fact you will realize that there needs to be a highlight of commonalities, and not differences. When did you become so wise that you think you are obligated to label anyone that you didn't even attempt to understand "petit-bourgeoisie"? Has this gotten you anywhere?

Your entire defeated mindset reeks of petit-bourgeoisie. You say that real pro-worker change can come from the bourgeois state; while rejecting the idea of revolution. You have no material analysis, just assorted complaints that boil down to a lack of patience, reminiscent of so many teenagers and college students who flirt with revolutionary socialism but don't have the endurance for it. You vote for Democrats and subscribe to the DSA.

You are an objective block on the revolution. With friends like the Democrats, the union bureaucracies, DSA, and yourself, we don't need enemies.

[Q]

DM: The new one clearly has no solid idea on what socialist politics entails. You might want to explain more and condemn less. This is not Sam Webb or Bob Avakian you're polemicising with.

[BlackMarx]

I am a proud member of DSA, and I have to disagree with you. Alot of people who want "revolution" seem to lack the understanding of the implications of what that means in a country like the United States, especially where the majority working class populous (Anglo-Americans) are more reactionary and engaged by far-right politics then anything slightly left of center. I think you will find that Harrington was correct in his analysis and the most practical change can only really be gained through progressive politics within the Democratic Party. Of course, with that said, also understand that the majority of us in DSA understand how full of shit the Democratic Party is and how the America is on the road to ruin and Fascism more then anything else. I emphasize with revolutionary , as a Marxist and a member DSA's more radical-left discourse, but I am also a pragmatist and a skeptic of leftist who romanticize revolution in the manner that our class enemies romanticize free markets.

[RED DAVE]

Dude just stop. The US is a capitalist shit hole its not getting any better with this sectarian nonsenseSystematic criticism of the shit hole, leading to revolutionary action, is not nonsense.

Maybe you should have been in Wisconsin.

RED DAVE

[graymouser]

I am a proud member of DSA, and I have to disagree with you. Alot of people who want "revolution" seem to lack the understanding of the implications of what that means in a country like the United States, especially where the majority working class populous (Anglo-Americans) are more reactionary and engaged by far-right politics then anything slightly left of center. I think you will find that Harrington was correct in his analysis and the most practical change can only really be gained through progressive politics within the Democratic Party. Of course, with that said, also understand that the majority of us in DSA understand how full of shit the Democratic Party is and how the America is on the road to ruin and Fascism more then anything else. I emphasize with revolutionary , as a Marxist and a member DSA's more radical-left discourse, but I am also a pragmatist and a skeptic of leftist who romanticize revolution in the manner that our class enemies romanticize free markets.
Progressive change from working with the Democrats? Are you joking?

Where is medicare for all (HR 676)? Where is the Employee Free Choice Act? Where is immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan? Where is an unconditional amnesty for every undocumented immigrant in this country? Where is the end of Guantanamo Bay? Where are the billions for health care, education and jobs rather than warfare?

The Democratic Party is a vicious enemy of progressive causes. Obama's reaction to "transparency" being forced in US foreign policy by Bradley Manning's courageous actions has been to throw him in a military prison, and outright state his guilt before a trial has been brought. Instead of ending the wars, he's escalated them. The "race to the top" programs have furthered a vicious campaign of union-busting through charter schools, and at the state level Democrats have joined Republicans in frontal assaults on public workers' right to organize. Obama's health care "reform" is a mandate that everyone carry overpriced health insurance. His administration has deported more immigrants than Bush ever could have, and furthered the militarization of the borders. Rather than operate under international law, just yesterday he had a CIA team go through with the extrajudicial execution of Osama bin Laden.

If progressive politics have to rely upon the Democratic Party, we're never going to get anywhere.

[black magick hustla]

the dsa is a cesspool of zionists and people who ride the dick of the AFL-CIO and the democratic party. The Harrignton thesis of "the left wing of realism" is a capitulation to sachmanite "state department socialism"

[black magick hustla]

coming from a ex ydser and from anybody who splitted from yds in my area (most of us)

[Gorilla]

I am a proud member of DSA, and I have to disagree with you. Alot of people who want "revolution" seem to lack the understanding of the implications of what that means in a country like the United States, especially where the majority working class populous (Anglo-Americans) are more reactionary and engaged by far-right politics then anything slightly left of center. I think you will find that Harrington was correct in his analysis and the most practical change can only really be gained through progressive politics within the Democratic Party. Of course, with that said, also understand that the majority of us in DSA understand how full of shit the Democratic Party is and how the America is on the road to ruin and Fascism more then anything else. I emphasize with revolutionary , as a Marxist and a member DSA's more radical-left discourse, but I am also a pragmatist and a skeptic of leftist who romanticize revolution in the manner that our class enemies romanticize free markets.

You're gonna love OI.

Also, I'd be surprised if the American working class is majority-white anymore.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Revolution is next to an impossibility at the moment because, first, Bernstein was right when he said capitalism adapts itself. Second, in organizing you will find it extremely hard to get people to care about other people's plights. There needs to be an issue that effects a group enough for them to be willin

No Marxist would deny that capitalism adapts itself. That's obvious, capitalism thrives on crisis. Bernstein was wrong in saying capitalism had eliminated most of its contradictions. His elimination of crisis tendencies were quite obviously wrong and were proven so a decade or so after his Evolutionary Socialism -WWI. The guy shouldn't be resurrected.



slow process, awakening class consciousness in people.


The Democratic Party and its "progressive" offshoots and hangers on like the DSA, PDA, CPUSA, etc. are designed to lower class consciousness. That's their purpose.They have sabotaged, destroyed, or weakened every progressive movement they've been a part of. This has very obviously happened w/the anti-war movement.A central idea of Harrington and the DSA is that there will be a "left turn" within the DP. Structurally that just isn't possible. Progressive and left dems like Moveon.org, are upset at Obama. So what? There is nothing they can do about it, they don't have the funding.
In 2012 they will not only support but actively work for Obama's neo-liberalism.That is the ultimate bankruptcy of liberalism.

There are no shortcuts. The only way to raise class consciousness lies in utterly breaking from the Dems.




Which is why fine tuning the welfare state would lead to more opportunity for revolt.



Both parties are cooperating in dismantling what remains of the welfare state.The attacks on the working class are constant and can only worsen.To not decisively break with bourgeois politics only reinforces the chains.


A few years ago I was talking with a friend and comparing the uprising in Greece and elsewhere with the quiet and seeming passivity in the US. My friend said, "This is an eloquent testimony to the historic influence of the Democratic Party". He was right. For starters, the DP is why we don't have national healthcare in the US.

[Olentzero]

All right, ease up on grooverider. We do the ISO no favors by jumping down the throats of members who display uncertainty and confusion as if they were history's biggest class traitors. We can disagree (and quite rightly so) with the DSA's politics and polemicize with them without attacking the person who's trying to figure out what's up.

I think groove's misunderstanding of Bernstein's reformism has been adequately addressed here so I won't go into that, but the larger point of revolution being impossible needs more attention.

groove, what you need to understand is that capitalism, because of its very nature as a class society, breeds resistance and fightback. That's always going to happen. What turns that fightback into a potential revolution is the presence of organized revolutionary organizations and parties who fight for leadership in those movements or at least try to push them in a more radical direction. An organization like the DSA, with its misguided view of the Democrats as the party of the American worker and its demoralization as regards the possibility of revolution, will react to larger outbreaks of resistance at best in a confused manner and at worst in a downright reactionary one. The ISO, on the other hand, tries to prepare itself to join those struggles and push them forward so that either we actually win something, or we learn how to retreat with a minimum of losses and learn important lessons for the next time. In that regard the DSA is a political dead end, and you'll only end up having your disillusionment feed into itself when the fight quiets down. Honestly, you should have drawn a lot of inspiration and confidence from Wisconsin over the winter, even if that damned law did get passed. That's the kind of thing socialists live for.

I'll wrap up by recommending two books for you to read, both of which are readily available via Haymarket Books, if you don't have an ISO branch in your area with a lit supply. First up is Lance Selfa's The Democrats: A Critical History (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/The-Democrats-A-Critical-History) to give you a good idea of why it's not going to be possible to radicalize the Democrats - their roots aren't in the working class. Second, Revolutionary Rehearsals (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Revolutionary-Rehearsals) - a collection of essays on five major uprisings over the past 45 years: France 1968, Chile 1972, Portugal 1974, Iran 1979, and Poland 1980. All of them had broad revolutionary potential, and all of them ultimately needed an organized revolutionary party to move forward - which none of them had.

These two books ought to give you some better perspective on things and help to clarify your thoughts a bit. With any luck the reading and discussion around these books will do more to convince you to bail on the DSA.

[Qayin]

Holy shit this is so fucking self absorbed sectarian bullshit no fucking wonder the rightists own fucking america

[graymouser]

Holy shit this is so fucking self absorbed sectarian bullshit no fucking wonder the rightists own fucking america
Groups like Democratic Socialists of America hold back actual solutions by helping to keep progressives chained hand and foot to the Democratic Party. Until we have class independence, we aren't going to get anywhere.

All you've contributed to this thread is noise about "sectarianism." You haven't shown a way forward. Next year, DSA, CPUSA and other groups are going to subordinate any kind of struggle to the effort to re-elect Barack Obama. Actual socialists are going to be opposing that. This has nothing to do with sectarianism and everything to do with wrenching the working class and progressive movements free of the Democratic Party black hole.

[black magick hustla]

Holy shit this is so fucking self absorbed sectarian bullshit no fucking wonder the rightists own fucking america
sachman and harrington were traitors and they need to be treated as such. im not gonna respect traitors who took the side of the american state

[Zeus the Moose]

I think you will find that Harrington was correct in his analysis and the most practical change can only really be gained through progressive politics within the Democratic Party.


Of course, with that said, also understand that the majority of us in DSA understand how full of shit the Democratic Party is and how the America is on the road to ruin and Fascism more then anything else.

How is this not a massive, glaring contradiction in your politics? On the one hand, DSA supposedly acknowledges the limits and failings of the Democratic Party (which is true to an extent based on DSAers I've met), and yet you still rely on them to get things done, even when it's been shown over and over again that they're part of the problem rather than the solution.

In my view, and most likely the view of the vast majority of folks on RevLeft, if you restrict yourself to achieving "practical" change through the Democratic Party you've hamstrung yourselves even when it comes to getting reforms past, because in the eyes of the Democratic Party as an organisation, what's "practical" directly aligns with the with the interests that give the Democratic Party most of its money- capital. Sure, unions do donate to the Democrats, but on a broad level their contributions are severely overmatched by those from various industries; IIRC the insurance industry was one of Obama's biggest donors last time around. Compare this to even the Labour Party in the UK, right-wing pro-capitalist formation that it is, still gets most of its organisational funds from the trade union movement.

Putting yourselves on the "left-wing of the possible," as another popular DSA phrase goes, puts you on the right-wing of the necessary when it comes to actually achieving a fairer, more equitable society, because even large-scale reforms are enacted people enough people are mobilised and angry enough that the question of political power of the working class becomes a possibility, even if it can't be fully actualised. Chaining yourselves to the Democrats will do nothing to build that militant mass movement, because the Democrats are concerned with elections, not struggle.

[The Douche]

Holy shit this is so fucking self absorbed sectarian bullshit no fucking wonder the rightists own fucking america

Do you defend nazis because they call themselves national socialists? Do you defend any organization that claims to be socialist?