|
Solaris 2.0 posted:Are the Democratic Socialists worth Getting involved with? I took a glance at their website, and they seem reasonable. However I remember hanging out with Green Party people before and they were more concerned with "Ideological Purity" than actually getting anything done, so I'm always wary. All of this for me, please. I keep checking and rechecking my email and the Maryland Democratic party website to see if there are any local meetings or committees I can join (I'm in Silver Spring), but it feels like I'm hollering into the void, generally speaking. I'm itching for stuff to do.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
Yes! Join the DSA if you believe in its mission, it's a big tent and new chapters are popping up like mushrooms. No ideological purges that I've seen yet (except IIRC there's one Leninist org you can't also be a member of because its mission is explicitly anti democratic). Because chapters are run democratically your chapter will reflect its membership.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Just as a clarification, is the DSA actually a third party or is it just an independent organization working in tandem with the Democrats?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Not a third party. Not necessarily working in tandem with the Democrats. The "Democratic" is because we believe in both socialism and democracy, and in advancing each through the other.  If Dems put forth socialist proposals we'll support them; if third parties put them forth we'll support them. If no-one else puts forth the proposals we'll make phone calls and agitate and push and petition and organize until someone DOES. But we don't run candidates ourselves. ChickenOfTomorrow fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Highly reccomend listening to the latest episode of Chapo Trap House. They talk about his latest documentary, Hypernormalization, and both it and the interview have very poignant critics of modern leftism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Interesting article from Bill Moyers on what's going on in Richmond, CA (small city just outside SanFran/Oakland that's had a lot of left grassroots success). I'll be getting this book when it comes out.quote:Well, I think the success of the Richmond Progressive Alliance as an electoral force really is due to the fact that it has taken an exceptionally ecumenical approach. It has welcomed people who are left-leaning Democrats, who are independents, who are registered members of third party like the California Greens or the California Peace and Freedom Party. There are members of different socialist groups. But it’s a broad charge, and under the banner of a local progressive movement, people have agreed to set aside disagreements that they or the organizations they belong to nationally might have about some issues in the interest of getting things done in a kind of united front at the local level. And that’s, as I’m sure you know, not characteristic left behavior in this country. Too often, people can’t get beyond their petty factional squabbles and ideological differences and compete rather than cooperate. So creating that kind of united front and kind of rebranding as the Richmond Progressive Alliance and welcoming people with different views and organizational affiliations on a left-liberal spectrum was really important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Interesting article from Bill Moyers on what's going on in Richmond, CA (small city just outside SanFran/Oakland that's had a lot of left grassroots success). I'll be getting this book when it comes out. In other news, there might be a better way to talk to conservatives about climate change. I'm going to finally meet my local Democrat chapter, so I'll bring it up to them as well. The short version is that we can now talk about how nice the climate used to be, and that has some better grip on Conservative personalities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:gently caress yeah Oracle. I wonder if that messaging might also work on economic topics and tax policy, i.e. "Back in the 1950s the U.S. had the highest growth in living standards in the world, partly because U.S. corporations paid their fair share to keep their communities running. Since then, thanks to lobbying, tax shelters and backroom deals, corporations and the top 1 percent have managed to cut taxes for themselves from 50 percent to 15 percent, pushing the burden of paying for the critical infrastructure they use off onto ordinary Americans like you and me. Don't you think it's time we asked them to start paying their fair share again?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
America's do-over. The American Dream, But For Everybody This Time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:gently caress yeah Oracle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
It's so obvious in hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Has this been linked here? It's a good read if you, like me, don't know much about the nuts and bolts of reaching and influencing your congressperson.quote:Ch. 1: How grassroots advocacy worked to stop Obama. We examine lessons from the Tea Party’s rise and recommend two key strategic components:
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
quote:Are the Democratic Socialists worth Getting involved with? I took a glance at their website, and they seem reasonable. However I remember hanging out with Green Party people before and they were more concerned with "Ideological Purity" than actually getting anything done, so I'm always wary. Yeah, the Democratic Socialists of America folks can be pretty decent. A lot of people have joined since the election, and DSA has a nationwide presence. They're the main group behind Jacobin magazine, actually. So if you like the articles you see in Jacobin, then you'll probably like DSA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:gently caress yeah Oracle. This is really silly and isn't going to work. Oracle posted:Turning their nostalgia against them. Brilliant. Except the climate isn't meaningfully worse in most parts of the us and is arguably better in some places. It's not brilliant, it's like how liberals think conservatism works- cargo cult conservatism, in other words. When I see things like that it becomes really obvious that most people don't have a clue how humans actually think and operate. e: It would be like a conservative trying to convince liberals that unmitigated immigration is a bad thing because a lot of immigrants from the middle east have views on women and gay people that make 1950s america look like a progressive paradise by comparison. 
TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
LngBolt posted:Yeah, the Democratic Socialists of America folks can be pretty decent. A lot of people have joined since the election, and DSA has a nationwide presence. They're the main group behind Jacobin magazine, actually. So if you like the articles you see in Jacobin, then you'll probably like DSA. Thanks I actually was just reading this. They tact a bit further left than me (but only slightly) however, considering the currently disgusting political landscape, I'm open to any and all efforts to unite leftist to a common goal getting Democrats back in power and defeating fascists. The local Washington DC area DSA is apparently hosting a happy hour next Tuesday. I may well stop by.. resurgam40 posted:All of this for me, please. I keep checking and rechecking my email and the Maryland Democratic party website to see if there are any local meetings or committees I can join (I'm in Silver Spring), but it feels like I'm hollering into the void, generally speaking. I'm itching for stuff to do. I am also in Silver Spring and found this local Democratic Party. http://www.mcdcc.org/ I sent them an email asking if they are hosting events after the New Years, and other ways I could get involved. We'll see if I hear back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:This is really silly and isn't going to work. Agreed. Now a pitch like "middle eastern oil moguls fund terrorism, therefore you are writing a blank check to ISIS every time you pump gas," might gain some traction since nationalism is a very big part of the conservative movement. Sure, they wouldn't be laying off the oil for the environments sake, but the right things done for the wrong reasons is better than doing the wrong things altogether.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:This is really silly and isn't going to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
The thing is, most conservatives will actually agree (maybe after some prodding) that global warming actually is a thing, and the ones that don't are never going to come around anyway. That argument completely and totally misses the point, so even if we ignore that nobody is going to be sold by "hey mannn wasn't the weather better a couple decades ago" (like seriously, how on earth do people think that is going to work) it misses what is actually the real issue- how we deal with global warming. Hell even people like Rex Tillerson admit it's real, but that doesn't mean they are willing to make the sacrifices required to fix it. It's also a self defeating argument, to deal with GCC in the timeframe necessary requires radical change, which goes against the whole premise that you are going to win over someone with nostalgia. They'll pick having a warmer climate (even if this isn't accurate, almost everyone thinks GW = hotter) over the many things that would have to be done differently to fix GCC every day of the week. I honestly cannot get over how ridiculous the whole thing is, it reminds me of that one scene in Breaking Bad where Saul is trying to convince Skyler that Walt should buy a Laser Tag place: "Walt's a scientist.... scientist love lasers!!  By definition someone who is a GCC denier doesn't think that the climate is different than it was 100 years ago, what on earth would they be nostalgic about? And who the gently caress actually gets nostalgic over weather? People get nostalgic over their grandma's apple pie, I don't think it would be possible to get any more ivory tower liberal than thinking conservatives would give a gently caress about what the weather was like in the 1800s compared to now.Does anyone really think someone is going to look back at poo poo like the dust bowl and think, yea those were some good times!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Does anyone really think someone is going to look back at poo poo like the dust bowl and think, yea those were some good times! Maybe actually read the study in question next time? The findings were that conservatives are more supportive of environmental efforts when they're framed in terms of "preventing change/keeping things the same," and that liberals are more supportive when it's framed as "safeguarding the future."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:e: It would be like a conservative trying to convince liberals that unmitigated immigration is a bad thing because a lot of immigrants from the middle east have views on women and gay people that make 1950s america look like a progressive paradise by comparison. I can see how you earned your red text! Considering that the strategy is based off an actual study, I think I'm going to trust it over someone who claims that most conservatives think global warming is a thing without any info to back them up. What are you even doing here? Did you really just come in to dismiss a proven strategy? Nobody's arguing that we should talk about the 1800s, that's loving rediculous. There's climate change that's happened WITHIN PEOPLE'S LIFETIMES that we can point to as obvious, even if that climate change is direct result of development. Like seriously, how on earth do you think this is going to work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Does anyone know any decent outlets for activist journalism for unqualified 20-somethings? I'm thinking about making more of an effort to write letters to the editor, get in contact with leftist publications like Jacobin, etc. I know that journalism is a pretty rough field to get into, and maybe this isn't the best thread for this, but we need to get our ideas out there imo. Hell maybe we need an alt-left misinformation machine a la leftbart and classwars to win over the global proletariat
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:It's also a self defeating argument, to deal with GCC in the timeframe necessary requires radical change, which goes against the whole premise that you are going to win over someone with nostalgia. They'll pick having a warmer climate (even if this isn't accurate, almost everyone thinks GW = hotter) over the many things that would have to be done differently to fix GCC every day of the week. Additionally, what are the negative consequences of doing this? If there are none, then even the most marginal gains from posting these things will be superior to the stasis of inactivity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:OK, been trying to crack the DPF nut for a bit and hitting walls. (that's Democratic Party of Florida, not Doomed Party of Failure; you'd be forgiven for the mixup though). You should be less concerned that we reelected a sacrificial lamb than that our two biggest state-level superstars were former republicans, who were literally running as "Scott, but with less flagrant corruption". If you wanna get involved I guess you can start with the monthly party meetings. Next one is on the fifth. I went once, a few years ago. In terms of demographic makeup, it was pretty solidly "Middleaged Jewish Women" in character, and half the seats were empty. Thinkin I'll start going to this once and the Orlando one as long as dates don't overlap. If it's still a ghost town maybe we can stage a hostile takeover. e: If you're thinking that the Jewish comment seems a bit off, I'd point out that the monthly meetings are in a Temple. Schizotek fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Trying to persuade conservatives who don't already accept the broad realities of climate change is a pointless exercise and waste of energy. One of the most frustrating components of modern leftism is this idea that in order to win a political battle you have to somehow win the hearts and minds of those who disagree with you. Conservatives did not fill the White House with climate change deniers by convincing progressives on the issue. The did it by mobilizing and riling up people who were inclined to agree with them in the first place. People like Myron Ebell and his ilk never really gave two shits about what any democrats thought--they focused primarily on making it politically untenable for republican politicians to adopt reasonable positions on climate change. And they were able to drive their own party further into radical territory and get them to toe the line by exerting pressure in primary elections, which really only required them to mobilize a minority of republican voters. The left needs to do the same thing. Stop worrying about convincing people on the other side. Instead, rile up the base, and convince liberal leaning people who are inclined to listen to you in the first place that, for example, climate change is an emergency, there are immediate and visible short term effects (for example rapid melting in the arctic), and it can be blamed on Those Fuckers who are preventing any meaningful action on the matter. I mean there are tons and tons of people who vote straight-ticket democrat who, while they believe in climate change and will readily accept anything they believe to be the scientific consensus, are not terribly passionate or informed on the issue and vaguely believe that we will somehow sort it out before it becomes a huge problem. Spend 10 minutes scaring the poo poo out of those people, and it will be better spent than a years worth of arguing with conservatives who fundamentally do not want to believe you because you're on the Wrong Team.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
Hey folks, just wanted to drop an apology for not being around as much as I probably should be given that I'm the OP. I haven't been having some pretty severe mental health issues and taking a step back from politics and stuff for a while has been a necessity. I'll rejoin you all once I manage to get my head on straight again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Spend 10 minutes scaring the poo poo out of those people, and it will be better spent than a years worth of arguing with conservatives who fundamentally do not want to believe you because you're on the Wrong Team. Captain Fargle posted:Hey folks, just wanted to drop an apology for not being around as much as I probably should be given that I'm the OP. I haven't been having some pretty severe mental health issues and taking a step back from politics and stuff for a while has been a necessity. I'll rejoin you all once I manage to get my head on straight again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Hey folks, just wanted to drop an apology for not being around as much as I probably should be given that I'm the OP. I haven't been having some pretty severe mental health issues and taking a step back from politics and stuff for a while has been a necessity. I'll rejoin you all once I manage to get my head on straight again. Good luck with it; this election did a number on a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
I have very little experience with politics but now that my shock and overwhelming anxiety is starting to wear off I'm finding myself increasingly agitated with the state of the Democratic party. I'm a hair's breadth away from joining the DSA but before I commit $40 I wanted to know if that really is the best way to influence the party further to the left and to get them to properly address income inequality and stop empowering representatives who are okay with bombing the poo poo out of civilians in foreign countries or if there's some alternative I missed. The most I've ever done is phone calls to reps and petitions so I feel unsure of the next step in terms of actually getting involved, I just want to do whatever I can to get Dems to stop repeating the same mistakes, will joining the DSA actually help me do this? I'm sure they're helpful for organization regardless, just want to make sure it's the right choice since my funds are very limited. Also, Solaris asked it earlier but I didn't see an answer, is there any organization I could join or support that would have influence on environmental policies? I live in Texas and oil just won big in the courts so the outlook is very bleak. I've checked out the Citizen's Environmental Coalition and they seem to have a good calendar for local events like clean-ups and planting seeds, etc. and I plan to do those things too but if possible I would also really like to do something to mitigate the damage on a higher level. If anyone lives in Houston and has some good local organizations that they would recommend, I would be very interested, doesn't have to be the stuff I mentioned specifically just something that will make a positive change. yellowyams fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:I have very little experience with politics but now that my shock and overwhelming anxiety is starting to wear off I'm finding myself increasingly agitated with the state of the Democratic party. I'm a hair's breadth away from joining the DSA but before I commit $40 I wanted to know if that really is the best way to influence the party further to the left and to get them to properly address income inequality and stop empowering representatives who are okay with bombing the poo poo out of civilians in foreign countries or if there's some alternative I missed. The most I've ever done is phone calls to reps and petitions so I feel unsure of the next step in terms of actually getting involved, I just want to do whatever I can to get Dems to stop repeating the same mistakes, will joining the DSA actually help me do this? I'm sure they're helpful for organization regardless, just want to make sure it's the right choice since my funds are very limited.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Honestly? No. You are ice skating uphill by joining a fringe party and trying to influence one of the two main parties from the outside. You need to take over the already-existing party from the inside. Why? Because the party has absolutely no reason to listen to you. You have no money, you have little influence, and some of your ideals are opposed to several within the party (whether they're stated or not). Even Bernie Sanders lifelong Independent Socialist from Vermont didn't run as a Socialist. He ran as a Democrat. Why? Ballot access. Dems have access everywhere and its easy to get on the ballot. They have chapters everywhere. They are a known quantity throughout the country. All things you need if you want to reach as many people as possible. Noone has to explain what a Democrat is. You will be explaining your party to just about everyone you meet. That is a lot of lost opportunity when you could just hit the ground running. I'm sure there will be others who will argue the opposite, but divide and conquer isn't just a saying. The fractious Left has been shooting itself in the foot since the sixties. We need to get our poo poo together and get on the same page. Counterpoint: Saying your joining the DSA (and actually following through) elicits this sort of response. Contrary to what Oracle says, failings of the left over the past sixty years has nothing to do with infighting and everything to do with the radicals copitualting to moderates and retreating from politics in a participatory manner. The best means to gain the power lost from this is by organizing independently from the Dems and be a force that either must be appeased or be a threat to them during election years. The party from the local to national level is heavily entrenched who have a vested interest in both retaining power and keeping the party in a firm center. Fighting them from the inside forces you to do so on their terms, doing so from the outside gives you more of chance to choose your fights and how they are fought. You should stay a registered Dem (and for now vote for them) for basically the reasons Oracle said, but you should work on building up the DSA first and try to build relationships with sympathetic Dem officials to make the DSA their base. Besides, since you live in Texas it might actually be easier convincing people to support a brand new party than it is to support the Dems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
I joined the DSA. It turns out that doesn't actually stop you from getting involved in Democratic politics, like, at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
DSA isn't a political party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Honestly? No. You are ice skating uphill by joining a fringe party He's not joining a party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
RiotGearEpsilon posted:I joined the DSA. It turns out that doesn't actually stop you from getting involved in Democratic politics, like, at all. He asked how he'd be most effective, and I gave him my opinion, having gone the third party route and been completely discouraged/disgusted by what I'd seen, and having gone the other way and seen more results. quote:He's not joining a party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
I'd say it's worth seeing who is involved and if they're actually plugged into the actual process. If they're mostly involved with the Democratic party as well, you're basically just spending time with a Socialist caucus of the Democratic party, and that's not a bad thing. If they're mostly just rejects who got shunned by the party for being disruptive, you might just be wasting your time. It's sort of like how the Libertarians and Green party rarely get anywhere; even if the platforms of those parties is a better fit, if someone has real potential, they'd just be spinning their wheels without ever progressing their agenda except within a major party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Yeah, the DSA sounds cool but it shouldn't be a substitute for engaging with the actual party
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
As MizPiz correctly points out, the big flaw that progressives in the US have had is that there is no other organization for them outside of the Democratic Party. There is nothing wrong with the DSA from that point of view, and if its membership and name recognition can grow to a point where it can exert influence on the Democratic Party, then it absolutely has huge value. If it starts trying to run candidates on a level and in a way that undermines national politics, then we have a problem. It needs to be a progressive Tea Party, not a Libertarian party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Also, would it be possible to pull the Tea Party at all? Seems like at least a few of them will be dissatisfied with Trump being literally the opposite of what they wanted, once that becomes clear, and they'll have the experience with rallying the parts of the country that are gonna be the hardest nuts to crack for progressive causes. I mean, Tea partiers hate corruption as much as we do, they're just...very poorly informed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
cheese posted:As MizPiz correctly points out, the big flaw that progressives in the US have had is that there is no other organization for them outside of the Democratic Party. There is nothing wrong with the DSA from that point of view, and if its membership and name recognition can grow to a point where it can exert influence on the Democratic Party, then it absolutely has huge value. If it starts trying to run candidates on a level and in a way that undermines national politics, then we have a problem. It needs to be a progressive Tea Party, not a Libertarian party. If I'm going to be upfront, I do think the DSA should work towards being able to run their own candidates. The reason the Tea Party worked was because they were working in the interest of conservative elites like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. No matter what reason individuals decided to join or support the Tea Party, what they fought for benefitted the people who were alreadu supporting the Republicans. If the DSA wants to be effective, they need to be able to directly fight against entrenched Democrats at the ballot box. I do agree that people should be a part of both parties and that they should be tied together, but the DSA will only have the power to affect the Democrats if they can actually be a threat to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
MizPiz posted:If I'm going to be upfront, I do think the DSA should work towards being able to run their own candidates. I think an interesting route would be to identify potential candidates and try to push them up the ranks in the Democratic party. The Tea Party candidates didn't run as Tea Party, they ran as Republicans. If there are enough people in the DSA willing to work, you could probably present a real primary threat for smaller races. And then there's all sorts of non-partisan races that you could probably win if you focused efforts on small areas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:49
|
|