|
Ace of Baes posted:It's not barring anyone from joining or working because it's not enforced, it exists as a failsafe in case it's needed. so its an arbitrary rule that can be used whenever the leadership feels like enforcing it? they can choose to break or follow the rules of the organization and its democratic decisions as it suits their needs? this is basically what youre saying.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
The language is pretty specifically "found to be under the discipline of a self-defined demcent org" iirc, which puts the onus on an unspecified "finder" not the demcent org member in question. In other words, it's not "demcenters don't join" it's "we reserve the right to boot you if you do" Not saying how you should feel about this, just that AoB is reading it correctly imo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:You don't want "communists" doing entryism because their goal isn't for the DSA to do well or succeed, it's too peel/poach members and ensure the DSA is not successful, because it "can't" be, according to the entryist in question, hence the reason for entryism as a tactic, vs just joining the org and doing work like non-entryists. this sounds like reasons to be paranoid of all new members and also to left punch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:whoa check out how chill this poster is thank you for recognizing this plain as day fact
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:this sounds like reasons to be paranoid of all new members and also to left punch. you absolutely should be paranoid of new members, they could be cops, they could be tankies, or worse than both they could be liberals all of the above will destroy the org cops will cause drama and infighting tankies will cause drama + infighting while making the organization absolutely useless and do-nothing liberals will de-radicalize the org and make the org useless and do-nothing
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:so its an arbitrary rule that can be used whenever the leadership feels like enforcing it? they can choose to break or follow the rules of the organization and its democratic decisions as it suits their needs? this is basically what youre saying. There are some rules in life based on discretion rather than spelled out exact scenarios that can be gamed. Like for example if you specifically wanted to get involved with DSA just to help say a menstrual hygiene product drive go smoothly, or phonebank no one would bat an eye. That's not entryism. Entryism is when you join, try to maneuver to leadership position and then say "Wouldn't it be better if we became the Democratic Swamp Maoists?" and then a bunch of buddies that joined up with you all vote that yes, because you showed up to the meeting/gamed the rules, because you knew the majority of members didn't want that, but it was the right thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
Danny Fetonte
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:There are some rules in life based on discretion rather than spelled out exact scenarios that can be gamed. Like for example if you specifically wanted to get involved with DSA just to help say a menstrual hygiene product drive go smoothly, or phonebank no one would bat an eye. That's not entryism. Entryism is when you join, try to maneuver to leadership position and then say "Wouldn't it be better if we became the Democratic Swamp Maoists?" and then a bunch of buddies that joined up with you all vote that yes, because you showed up to the meeting/gamed the rules, because you knew the majority of members didn't want that, but it was the right thing to do. so if rules need to have nuance and be used discreetly, maybe a blanket ban that can be used arbitrarily isn't a very good way to prevent what you're describing. why dont you just change the language to specifically ban entryism if thats what you want to prevent? a rule like that can also be used to potentially ban members just for being in dem/cent orgs but at least then it actually becomes a question of trying to stop what youre describing and would need evidence for or against. if the whole reason people like the rule is because it prevents entryism, then why not just have a rule against entryism instead of what there is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:you absolutely should be paranoid of new members, they could be cops, they could be tankies, or worse than both they could be liberals I suppose. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
also isnt this thread filled with people complaining about doing exactly what youre describing already by using roberts rules bullshit to disenfranchise members that disagree with local chapter leadership like in phili? it sounds like what youre afraid of is already happening so the rule isnt very effective at stopping it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
"we should be wary of demcent organizations and excessive centralization" i cry as i valiantly defend a cold war era rule that allows us to expel members for being part of political organizations that we dont like
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
"look, that law on the books is just there in case we need it. we wont use it unless we have to" definitely something that leftists should support and defend
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
Postoyevsky posted:"look, that law on the books is just there in case we need it. we wont use it unless we have to" it's messed up how DSA keeps arresting all the communists and throwing them in DSA jail
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
on the other hand, look at these very cool normal people the DSA is missing out on
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:it's messed up how DSA keeps arresting all the communists and throwing them in DSA jail agreed and its equally hilarious that youre picking this hill to die on
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
DSA posters oppressing Guyovich itt
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:you absolutely should be paranoid of new members, they could be cops, they could be tankies, or worse than both they could be liberals the DSA should ONLY allow Trots tbh. and also rename itself to Bolshevik-Leninist Party and change its entire platform to revolutionary socialism
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
who cares just do real poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
unbutthurtable posted:who cares
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
unbutthurtable posted:who cares no
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
hot sorcery posted:i severely regret you linking me to this thread 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:The language is pretty specifically "found to be under the discipline of a self-defined demcent org" iirc, which puts the onus on an unspecified "finder" not the demcent org member in question. In other words, it's not "demcenters don't join" it's "we reserve the right to boot you if you do" DADT for demcents hosed up if you ask me
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
Siljmonster posted:Danny Fetonte
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
FREE FENTONTE
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
If yall dont shut the gently caress up I'm inviting all of the RCP in so that Chairman Bob can abolish the NPC and usher in the new American Revolution
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:so its an arbitrary rule that can be used whenever the leadership feels like enforcing it? they can choose to break or follow the rules of the organization and its democratic decisions as it suits their needs? this is basically what youre saying. The actual problem you're describing here is the expulsion process. No, the steering committee should not be allowed to expel someone for being demcent, but if there's enough evidence and reason for an expulsion to be brought before and approved by a sufficient percentage of membership, it's probably an actual issue. That said we took it out of our draft bylaws and national's first response to us is telling us to put that back in and take out "no cops" so lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Cute equivocation here. The DSA was hostile to the Soviet Union at the same time that the United States was, but not for the same reasons. Using the phrase "cold war years" invites us to think that the organization wanted capital to win. being anti-soviet was, in practice, "wanting capital to win," no matter what vaguely left justifications you used. the bad guys won the cold war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
whatif there were no good guys in the cold war, except for tito and paul robeson
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
The difference between the DSA and trotskyist orgs, is that trotskyist orgs have a lot more experience being opportunists so they cover it up better. The DSA hates trotskyism so much because it reflects their own bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:I guess the question is am I an entryist when I do work for a local labor organization while being a member of a democratic centralist party, even when I'm open about it? I dont think the organizations I or my comrades have worked with would characterize us as entering them or trying to destroy them from the inside. we do valuable work for them and contribute to their work as they do with us. at what point is it entryism and at what point is it a case where I want to build the mass labor movement with all its contradictions and various political tendencies however I can, while also organizing myself with other explicitly revolutionary socialists at the same time? this is literally the dual task facing all revolutionaries. Yes
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
DevNull posted:The difference between the DSA and trotskyist orgs, is that trotskyist orgs have a lot more experience being opportunists so they cover it up better. The DSA hates trotskyism so much because it reflects their own bullshit. The difference between the DSA and most trotskyist orgs is 54,988 people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:The difference between the DSA and most trotskyist orgs is 54,988 people. Yes, that is literally the only difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:It's not barring anyone from joining or working because it's not enforced, it exists as a failsafe in case it's needed. Like how cops have curfew laws so they can handcuff children walking outside at night.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
DevNull posted:Yes, that is literally the only difference. In mathematics, a "difference" is what you get when you subtract one number from another, in this context the dual meaning of "difference" is the joke, with the punchline being that trotskyist orgs are very small. I hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
trots already did entryism into the dsa though? like that's what the jacobin people are. they're not secretive about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
yea the jacobin's left wing is mostly ex-iso (a trot org).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
yep. plus the tactics are straight out of that playbook. it's not some big mystery why springmentum people are attempting to force a split.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
I don’t understand anything that’s being discussed right now. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
its like a nature show - having attained a notable amount of recognition and attention, the org now splits into two smaller, less-effective ones that hate each other i can hear an attenbro narrating it in my head
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
it will be interesting b/c the right wing of the dsa presumably includes the 55,000 or so paper members that just send their money every year or so and most of the coastal leadership, so will they try to get the paper members to show up after the split or are they just going to convert into a well funded trot-lead cadre org. Actually that's dumb, they'll just try to be the new greens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 04:49
|
|