DSA: our brake light guy got arrested for beating his wife

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > DSA: our brake light guy got arrested for beating his wife

«‹›992 »

Relin: Oct 6, 2002; You have been a most worthy adversary, but in every game, there are winners and there are losers. And as you know, in this game, losers get robotizicized!

the dsa site doesn't have a third party handle transactions? i dont like that :/

# ? Jun 1, 2019 01:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 11:30

Internet Explorer: Jun 1, 2005

So, I'm curious as to how you all handle things that start to approach democratic centralism, or at least my understanding of it.

Say you have a race where you have not endorsed a candidate and are not going to. Would you forbid Slack discussion or calls to action for that candidate from rank and file members? Would that be an official chapter action/rule forbidding that, or would you let little-d democracy sort it out?

I sometimes see discussions framed in "well our chapter voted on this, any discussion counter to the decision is not welcome."

# ? Jun 3, 2019 22:37

SamDabbers: May 26, 2003

If we want a truly democratic society, it would be against that tendency to prevent members from voicing their personal opinions, as long as they are not representing their views as those of the organization.

# ? Jun 3, 2019 22:46

apropos to nothing: Sep 5, 2003

in a democratic centralist party, members can bring up and discuss anything they want during discussions. even if a decision about something has been made its still valid to discuss it again because situations and objective circumstances can change. that being said, if 99% of the party is in lock step on something and 1 guy disagrees and constantly wants to argue the point, then he shouldnt be able to monopolize the party discussion on that issue when hes an extreme minority on the topic of discussion.

# ? Jun 3, 2019 23:08

Internet Explorer: Jun 1, 2005

SamDabbers posted:

If we want a truly democratic society, it would be against that tendency to prevent members from voicing their personal opinions, as long as they are not representing their views as those of the organization.

My thoughts as well.

apropos to nothing posted:

in a democratic centralist party, members can bring up and discuss anything they want during discussions. even if a decision about something has been made its still valid to discuss it again because situations and objective circumstances can change. that being said, if 99% of the party is in lock step on something and 1 guy disagrees and constantly wants to argue the point, then he shouldnt be able to monopolize the party discussion on that issue when hes an extreme minority on the topic of discussion.

Ah, so it's not about discussing or not discussing it's about members not working against what the group has decided. From Wikipedia "are expected to follow that decision, and not continue propagandising or otherwise working against it, aiming to act in unity...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism

Thanks for the clarity, mea culpa.

This makes shutting down the discussion even worse, IMO. I can see where if it's at a business meeting any one voice is holding up the entire discussion. If the discussion is happening somewhere like Slack I can't see any good reason to shut it down in an official capacity.

# ? Jun 3, 2019 23:45

Business Gorillas: Mar 11, 2009

Siljmonster posted:

Hey just to let everyone know here I'm not with DSA but I pay dues so I can vote what do you mean no one wants me on their committees and caucuses

we had a group of SAlt people join under this pretense and now they're shocked that their approach of "waltzing in and telling all the people doing work that they're doing a lovely job" isn't making them any friends

# ? Jun 4, 2019 00:03

R. Guyovich: Dec 25, 1991

Internet Explorer posted:

Ah, so it's not about discussing or not discussing it's about members not working against what the group has decided. From Wikipedia "are expected to follow that decision, and not continue propagandising or otherwise working against it, aiming to act in unity...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism

Thanks for the clarity, mea culpa.

This makes shutting down the discussion even worse, IMO. I can see where if it's at a business meeting any one voice is holding up the entire discussion. If the discussion is happening somewhere like Slack I can't see any good reason to shut it down in an official capacity.

generally when a minority position holder disagrees strongly enough with the party line they wouldn't feel right holding it in public they just sit it out. sometimes that's not possible but in most cases nobody really cares.

# ? Jun 4, 2019 00:30

Internet Explorer: Jun 1, 2005

R. Guyovich posted:

generally when a minority position holder disagrees strongly enough with the party line they wouldn't feel right holding it in public they just sit it out. sometimes that's not possible but in most cases nobody really cares.

That's also how I generally see things. If someone disagrees with something in a volunteer org they're just not going to participate in said thing. Hopefully they can voice their concerns in a constructive manner, but you can't force someone to do something they don't want to do in this scenario.

I take the same approach from the other side of the coin, as well. If this person is in the minority and can't convince people that what they want to do is the right thing to do, people simply won't follow and it will fizzle out.

# ? Jun 4, 2019 01:32

apropos to nothing: Sep 5, 2003

Business Gorillas posted:

we had a group of SAlt people join under this pretense and now they're shocked that their approach of "waltzing in and telling all the people doing work that they're doing a lovely job" isn't making them any friends

where are you at if you dont mind my asking? I only ask cause I think I recall youre in the midwest like ohio i believe and I would guess those people left SA to do that. there was a small minority of people at one point, a few out of that area, arguing that SA should dissolve into DSA and when 99% of the party disagreed and said no way they left and went and joined DSA with the idea of making like an internal caucus or something.

# ? Jun 4, 2019 02:30

apropos to nothing: Sep 5, 2003

Internet Explorer posted:

That's also how I generally see things. If someone disagrees with something in a volunteer org they're just not going to participate in said thing. Hopefully they can voice their concerns in a constructive manner, but you can't force someone to do something they don't want to do in this scenario.

I take the same approach from the other side of the coin, as well. If this person is in the minority and can't convince people that what they want to do is the right thing to do, people simply won't follow and it will fizzle out.

that last part is important I think. a lot of times people in minority positions in parties become very angry and accuse the majority of undemocratic processes or being ultra-left/opportunist/whatever but at the end of the day if you cant convince the people around you of your ideas the problem is either with your ideas or the way youre selling them. obviously there are some parties and orgs that actually do have bad internal processes that stifle debate but in my experience, everyone I've ever met who has been a splitter or factionalizer is basically just angry they didnt get their way and would rather leave than be in a minority or actually like change their mind or try to change other peoples minds.

I've been in the minority on stuff and been proven right later, I've also been in the minority and been proven wrong later and changed my mind. the right approach will be proven in the course of the class struggle by what methods worked and which ones didnt and theres no shame or anything with being wrong sometimes. being wrong and making mistakes is how we learn sometimes, even if we still want to work to avoid them.

# ? Jun 4, 2019 02:35

apropos to nothing: Sep 5, 2003

basically I always have way more respect for people who are in parties/orgs I disagree with but who are consistent and trying to put in the work and build the labor movement over someone who I might agree with more but who is constantly jumping ship from one place to another never committing to the long term organizing that goes into building a coherent party/organization

# ? Jun 4, 2019 02:37

achillesforever6: Apr 23, 2012; psst you wanna do a communism?

https://twitter.com/DSA_PPC/status/1135632234105495552?s=19

# ? Jun 4, 2019 03:44

Baby Babbeh: Aug 2, 2005; It's hard to soar with the eagles when you work with Turkeys!!

For me, the centralism isn't really what causes the problems with democratic centralism. A certain degree of outward centralism and unity of action is necessary to be effective -- even anarchists like Bakunin thought this was true.

The real problem is in the democracy, or rather how the body defines the democratic process whereby it reaches decisions. Voting, absent more context, isn't enough to say if a process is democratic enough. I think this is particularly true if we're discussing decisions we're expecting to be binding on people who don't have any material incentive to stick around except for their belief that the organization is an effective vehicle for a cause they care about. It's true that if 99 percent of people are for something and I'm against it, then it's usually the best policy for me to just grit my teeth and go along with it. But my experience that it's rarely that one-sided for matters of substance. The minority position is usually something closer to 20 to 30 percent.

Which doesn't seem like much, but what happens when it's 20 to 30 percent that finds that they're always in the minority position, in an organization where being in the minority position means not doing the work they want to do? At a certain point, it makes more sense for them to not be in that organization anymore. You can say that they should just suck it up and stick around for the good of the movement. But a single organization is not the movement, and if they're consistently in the minority this is a sign that maybe their definition of "the movement" might not be the same as the movement the organization wants to make. So they split, and who can blame them? And it was just 20 percent of the members, not exactly catastrophic... until the next 20 percent start finding themselves in the minority all the time. Or maybe it's not quite 20 percent. Maybe it's just 5 percent. Or 2 percent. The point is that absent a steady, significant influx of new members, centralism in this situation leads to a steady winnowing effect.

Which is maybe not catastrophic during a growth phase for world socialism, because the broad trend of new people coming in hides the shrinkage due to splitting and we can mistake the sudden growth in the NUMBER of socialist organizations as an indicator of the discourse's vibrancy rather than its factionalism. But this kind of growth waxes and wanes, and I think history shows it has more to do with broad social and economic events than the actions of even very successful leftist formations. During the waning phase, the longer and more common material condition of history, the winnowing takes center stage. It ensures that the organization stays small and the movement stays unorganized and un-influential; it means that rather than broad coalitions we've got a lot of small groups that have great ideological unity internally but little contact or overlap with one another and, usually, a lot of leftover animosity due to unresolved beeves between their leaders.

One solution is to just... let everybody do there own thing. I actually think this approach works better than its detractors give it credit for. But it's true that it has its own problems, and it's never going to be as effective as that same group acting with great unity of direction. So I think if we're going to really do the job which we've set out for ourselves, if we're going to accomplish the thing that all the leftist visionaries that came before us utterly failed to do, if we're ACTUALLY going to overthrow the logic behind every system heretofore existing and replace it with something better, what we have to do is figure out democracy. And not as an ideal, as a practice. As a method.

The trouble is that it's often the people with the most power to fix these things that are the least motivated to make a try at it. After all, from their perspective, things are working just fine.

# ? Jun 4, 2019 09:17

PRESIDENT LADYCOP: Feb 3, 2019

R. Guyovich posted:

i'm pretty sure the latter unironically goes with the territory of being a red scare fan

https://twitter.com/nobody_stop_me/status/1121899541991706624

# ? Jun 4, 2019 09:40

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

https://twitter.com/agraybee/status/1135677361163292672?s=21

# ? Jun 4, 2019 12:35

Business Gorillas: Mar 11, 2009

apropos to nothing posted:

where are you at if you dont mind my asking? I only ask cause I think I recall youre in the midwest like ohio i believe and I would guess those people left SA to do that. there was a small minority of people at one point, a few out of that area, arguing that SA should dissolve into DSA and when 99% of the party disagreed and said no way they left and went and joined DSA with the idea of making like an internal caucus or something.

sent you a DM about this

# ? Jun 4, 2019 12:48

apropos to nothing: Sep 5, 2003

Baby Babbeh posted:

For me, the centralism isn't really what causes the problems with democratic centralism. A certain degree of outward centralism and unity of action is necessary to be effective -- even anarchists like Bakunin thought this was true.

The real problem is in the democracy, or rather how the body defines the democratic process whereby it reaches decisions. Voting, absent more context, isn't enough to say if a process is democratic enough. I think this is particularly true if we're discussing decisions we're expecting to be binding on people who don't have any material incentive to stick around except for their belief that the organization is an effective vehicle for a cause they care about. It's true that if 99 percent of people are for something and I'm against it, then it's usually the best policy for me to just grit my teeth and go along with it. But my experience that it's rarely that one-sided for matters of substance. The minority position is usually something closer to 20 to 30 percent.

Which doesn't seem like much, but what happens when it's 20 to 30 percent that finds that they're always in the minority position, in an organization where being in the minority position means not doing the work they want to do? At a certain point, it makes more sense for them to not be in that organization anymore. You can say that they should just suck it up and stick around for the good of the movement. But a single organization is not the movement, and if they're consistently in the minority this is a sign that maybe their definition of "the movement" might not be the same as the movement the organization wants to make. So they split, and who can blame them? And it was just 20 percent of the members, not exactly catastrophic... until the next 20 percent start finding themselves in the minority all the time. Or maybe it's not quite 20 percent. Maybe it's just 5 percent. Or 2 percent. The point is that absent a steady, significant influx of new members, centralism in this situation leads to a steady winnowing effect.

Which is maybe not catastrophic during a growth phase for world socialism, because the broad trend of new people coming in hides the shrinkage due to splitting and we can mistake the sudden growth in the NUMBER of socialist organizations as an indicator of the discourse's vibrancy rather than its factionalism. But this kind of growth waxes and wanes, and I think history shows it has more to do with broad social and economic events than the actions of even very successful leftist formations. During the waning phase, the longer and more common material condition of history, the winnowing takes center stage. It ensures that the organization stays small and the movement stays unorganized and un-influential; it means that rather than broad coalitions we've got a lot of small groups that have great ideological unity internally but little contact or overlap with one another and, usually, a lot of leftover animosity due to unresolved beeves between their leaders.

One solution is to just... let everybody do there own thing. I actually think this approach works better than its detractors give it credit for. But it's true that it has its own problems, and it's never going to be as effective as that same group acting with great unity of direction. So I think if we're going to really do the job which we've set out for ourselves, if we're going to accomplish the thing that all the leftist visionaries that came before us utterly failed to do, if we're ACTUALLY going to overthrow the logic behind every system heretofore existing and replace it with something better, what we have to do is figure out democracy. And not as an ideal, as a practice. As a method.

The trouble is that it's often the people with the most power to fix these things that are the least motivated to make a try at it. After all, from their perspective, things are working just fine.

the problem you outline is a lack of maturity by revolutionaries then, and a lack of seriousness regarding revolution. perspectives and methods are agreed on and put into practice not in an idealistic or moralistic way but in a concrete way that is meant to drive the class struggle forward. if 20% of the party are in a minority position and cant stomach using a tactic they disagree with for a period then theyre not committed to exhausting possibilities for how to build the workers movement. the success or failure of a specific political program and the methods you use to fight for it can be measured, in both quantitative ways like new members recruited, paper sales, money raised, contacts made, etc. and also qualitatively by like what kind of conversations did you have with people what kind of questions came up, etc. if a method is wrong it will be born out by the results. the same is true of issues regarding who should be in leadership.

at the end of the day, the point of the party isnt to build a model for a future existing society within itself, its to be a fighting force for revolutionary change. many folks like to use the term class warfare and kind of bandy it about, but if you really truly mean it when you say it, if you really view it as a war between classes, then it has to be treated like and fought like a war. it does require a certain degree of commitment and discipline by those who are willing to fight it. so yes democracy within a revolutionary party is essential and its lifeblood, but the democracy of freedom of thought and discussion, not the "democracy" of members doing whatever they want whenever they want to.

# ? Jun 4, 2019 12:53

apropos to nothing: Sep 5, 2003

I'll give a more concrete example of what I'm referring to. local dsa started after trump with like 50 people in the room. they have between 50-100 members locally on paper. meetings are now usually 5 or so. they started out kind of doing whatever anyone felt like, with prolly the best example being a brakelight clinic, which had a committee of like 1 person who organized it all. so overtime they organize a few of them, and changed like 3 brakelights total after prolly 20+ hours total time spent running the things. well, there was never any discussion about how effective or worthwhile it was, basically just a patting each other on the back because they did a good thing vibe. they didnt recruit out of it, they didnt raise any money out of it, actually lost money, and didnt raise their profile or connect with any workers meaningfully. thats a flawed tactic. if they did it a few times and it didnt work so be it, they would have learned from their experiences. but they kept doing it and continued to use resources and time and partly because of that their membership shrank and their presence in local politics became negligible.

same was true for local politicians. initially all the progressive dems were beating down their door to get the DSA nod and so they gave it and most of those candidates lost with little to show for it, and in races where there wasnt a progressive or left dem, the members went out and helped them anyway. as a result, no one candidate or group got the full backing of the org and so everyone learned that you dont need to go cap in hand and try to win the DSA over to support you, just run as a dem against a republican and their members will still turn out to help you and even if you do get their nod, they cant effectively mobilize their supporters to help you because they all just do whatever.

again overtime this led to now where their presence is minimal. in that same time we've actively organized 3 workplace OC, one of which has actually filed for election later this year. weve grown membership, weve raised money, most everyone in town knows us just as "the socialists." weve made mistakes too and weve disagreed at how best to proceed at times but the difference is we always examined what we did and didnt do critically to try to draw lessons and move forward. as a result weve been successful. not every DSA chapter is like that I recognize but the kind of approach remains in place in many places.

# ? Jun 4, 2019 13:06

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

https://twitter.com/agraybee/status/1135677361163292672?s=21

Eh, it was also always and still is pretty into Medicare for All, which doesn't really track with this theory since they'd have been young enough to still be on their parents' insurance plans.

eta: loving the replies

https://twitter.com/ConnieBallou/status/1135693509955129344

# ? Jun 4, 2019 13:26

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Looking this over I am not totally sure this guy's got the best handle on what "the DSA" says or does.

https://twitter.com/agraybee/status/1135675463613997056

Arguably, this is just another casualty of conflating "the DSA" and Jacobin Magazine.

eta: wait nm, just a Biden stan

https://twitter.com/agraybee/status/1135610623499411456

GunnerJ has issued a correction as of 13:35 on Jun 4, 2019

# ? Jun 4, 2019 13:31

Coolness Averted: Feb 20, 2007; oh don't worry, I can't smell asparagus piss, it's in my DNA

GO HOGG WILD!
🐗🐗🐗🐗🐗

GunnerJ posted:

Eh, it was also always and still is pretty into Medicare for All, which doesn't really track with this theory since they'd have been young enough to still be on their parents' insurance plans.

eta: loving the replies

https://twitter.com/ConnieBallou/status/1135693509955129344

wrap it up dsailures, u can't care about multiple things
I actually didn't quite parse that as a critique at first, like I thought it was a "Hey, it's cool DSA is expanding focus. Free College was important to them, now housing is too, and they're probably gonna be gearing up to think about child development and emotional labor division too"

I also love the utterly disingenuous reading of poo poo like the Jacobin article about having kids, and acting like it exists in a bubble as just the author justifying their choices as proper and socialist. I mean maybe it was, but in context this in response to the very real meme about "Having less kids is the best way for me to help the environment. Since I'm too poor to even effectively provide for myself, I'm helping by having 0 kids!" BS, that buys into to neoliberal atomizing of responsibility for the environment, rather than addressing there is literally no way you could ever in your entire life offset 1 or 2 of Elon Musk's private jet flights to watch videogame tournaments

Coolness Averted has issued a correction as of 17:56 on Jun 4, 2019

# ? Jun 4, 2019 17:50

Larry Parrish: Jul 9, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

apropros kind of spelled it out but step one is destroy or seize (and then destroy) the liberal state. by any means necessary. Forming perfect democratic consensus can happen later when we have destroyed the power of the ruling class

# ? Jun 4, 2019 21:55

TaintedBalance: Dec 21, 2006; hope, n: desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfilment

Finally got around to not being in a weird head space and actually officially joined the DSA. Now I need to figure out what the gently caress the East Bay DSA actually does and how to get involved. I have really been going about this whole process in the wrong order, but being without work for awhile starts to gently caress with your head! But no seriously, should I just go to the Socialist Night School tonight or what?

# ? Jun 4, 2019 23:07

Crakkerjakk: Mar 14, 2016

TaintedBalance posted:

Finally got around to not being in a weird head space and actually officially joined the DSA. Now I need to figure out what the gently caress the East Bay DSA actually does and how to get involved. I have really been going about this whole process in the wrong order, but being without work for awhile starts to gently caress with your head! But no seriously, should I just go to the Socialist Night School tonight or what?

I'd say yes. Just show up, and people there should be able to give you guidance from there.

# ? Jun 4, 2019 23:09

Coolness Averted: Feb 20, 2007; oh don't worry, I can't smell asparagus piss, it's in my DNA

GO HOGG WILD!
🐗🐗🐗🐗🐗

TaintedBalance posted:

Finally got around to not being in a weird head space and actually officially joined the DSA. Now I need to figure out what the gently caress the East Bay DSA actually does and how to get involved. I have really been going about this whole process in the wrong order, but being without work for awhile starts to gently caress with your head! But no seriously, should I just go to the Socialist Night School tonight or what?

Matt Stone is one of your at large SC folks and is a cool dude I've met a few others but his name is the only one I can recall right now because I worked on healthcare stuff and he was the SoCal regional m4a dude for a bit.
Also most of the folks I've heard trying to keep stuff going also just roll their eyes at the usual twitter drama-havers. So don't be too worried about any internet rumors or stuff you've seen posted by the extremely online

# ? Jun 4, 2019 23:18

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

https://twitter.com/BhamDSA/status/1135999480594075650

# ? Jun 5, 2019 00:46

Atrocious Joe: Sep 2, 2011

So is Haymarket books trying to affiliate itself with the DSA since the ISO dissolved? What used to be the big ISO conference is now advertising itself as a Jacobin/DSA thing. I think both endorsed last year but weren't given top billing.
https://twitter.com/haymarketbooks/status/1135584480259911682

I've got no stake in this, I'm just sort of confused and curious.

# ? Jun 5, 2019 02:01

BrainParasite: Jan 24, 2003

I hate democratic centralism as far as I understand it. First, democracy is tough to get right. Look at all the chapters having problems with chairs abusing that limited power. There also needs to be a way for groups with niche issues to be recognized and addressed.

Second centralism. I'm not always the most articulate. I need to be able to openly criticize the org and discuss my criticism with inside and outside folks. That's the only way to develop a convincing alternative. Tough if that could get you drummed out for breaking demcent.

# ? Jun 5, 2019 02:27

apropos to nothing: Sep 5, 2003

BrainParasite posted:

I hate democratic centralism as far as I understand it. First, democracy is tough to get right. Look at all the chapters having problems with chairs abusing that limited power. There also needs to be a way for groups with niche issues to be recognized and addressed.

Second centralism. I'm not always the most articulate. I need to be able to openly criticize the org and discuss my criticism with inside and outside folks. That's the only way to develop a convincing alternative. Tough if that could get you drummed out for breaking demcent.

democratic centralism doesnt mean you are drummed out of the party for criticizing it internally or publicly. obviously any organization can use bad methods and can do that kinda poo poo and claim its because people broke the discipline of the party, but comrades are supposed to be encouraged to criticize in healthy ways so mistakes are fixed and things are made better. my FB feed is filled with people arguing with each other about all kinds of poo poo involving my party right now.

as for niche issues we have caucuses for students, POC, LGBTQ folks and others, but you have to have democratic structures to ensure everyone has the right to do exactly what youre describing, which is raise criticisms, new perspectives, etc.

# ? Jun 5, 2019 02:39

R. Guyovich: Dec 25, 1991

most of the criticisms of demcent i see here and elsewhere are based on fundamental misunderstandings of the concept.

# ? Jun 5, 2019 02:42

Autism Sneaks: Nov 21, 2016

R. Guyovich posted:

most of the criticisms of [controversial position in left politics] i see here and elsewhere are based on fundamental misunderstandings of the concept.

# ? Jun 5, 2019 03:20

Coolness Averted: Feb 20, 2007; oh don't worry, I can't smell asparagus piss, it's in my DNA

GO HOGG WILD!
🐗🐗🐗🐗🐗

R. Guyovich posted:

most of the criticisms of demcent i see here and elsewhere are based on fundamental misunderstandings of the concept.

Or where they've seen lovely orgs implement it. tbf those same lovely orgs/people would ruin almost anything so it might not be a fair yard stick.

# ? Jun 5, 2019 03:21

apropos to nothing: Sep 5, 2003

yeah I understand 100% why people who have been around the left for a while are skeptical of revolutionary parties. there are many small sects out there that more or less operate as political cults. I dont generally like to characterize groups like that because people will sometimes say that about whatever group they disagree with just to badmouth them, but it is actually true for a few of them.

# ? Jun 5, 2019 03:32

R. Guyovich: Dec 25, 1991

Coolness Averted posted:

Or where they've seen lovely orgs implement it. tbf those same lovely orgs/people would ruin almost anything so it might not be a fair yard stick.

if it's being implemented poorly they also have a misunderstanding of the concept.

# ? Jun 5, 2019 03:46

BrainParasite: Jan 24, 2003

apropos to nothing posted:

democratic centralism doesnt mean you are drummed out of the party for criticizing it internally or publicly. obviously any organization can use bad methods and can do that kinda poo poo and claim its because people broke the discipline of the party, but comrades are supposed to be encouraged to criticize in healthy ways so mistakes are fixed and things are made better. my FB feed is filled with people arguing with each other about all kinds of poo poo involving my party right now.

as for niche issues we have caucuses for students, POC, LGBTQ folks and others, but you have to have democratic structures to ensure everyone has the right to do exactly what youre describing, which is raise criticisms, new perspectives, etc.

Ok fair. So what changes would be needed to make DSA demcent?

# ? Jun 5, 2019 11:46

Mr. Lobe: Feb 23, 2007; ... Dry bones...

Atrocious Joe posted:

So is Haymarket books trying to affiliate itself with the DSA since the ISO dissolved? What used to be the big ISO conference is now advertising itself as a Jacobin/DSA thing. I think both endorsed last year but weren't given top billing.
https://twitter.com/haymarketbooks/status/1135584480259911682

I've got no stake in this, I'm just sort of confused and curious.

There has always been an intersecting element of Jacobin/ISO/CERSC people in the conference because there are people who have various ties to each of those organizations. In the past 4 years or so, people from the DSA with Jacobin ties, such as Bhaskar Sunkara have held talks there as well, though it's also true there has always been a significant non-ISO element in the conference anyways, such as Amy Goodman showing up pretty much every year, as well as many authors who publish books with Haymarket, such as organizers from the Combahee River Collective.

CERSC, the organizers of the conference, are now dealing with the absence of the ISO both in terms of labor power (ISO volunteers handled childcare, security, and basic organizing things) and funds. I'm sure CERSC wants to leverage its non ISO ties to the extent it can to continue the existence of the conference and fill those voids. I'm sure the Jacobin affiliated people want to leverage their organizational ties to maintain the conference. There has also been a desire expressed in residual ex-ISO channels to see the conference become a genuinely multi-organizational space on political principles. I can't speak to what anyone in the DSA thinks about this though.

I personally hope the organizers succeed at their efforts to keep the conference alive. I always did like the socialism conference, not many places you can go to see thousands of people and be reasonably sure the cast majority have a Marxist understanding of the huge problems we are facing as a society. If it stopped existing, I think it would be a setback for the US left.

Mr. Lobe has issued a correction as of 12:33 on Jun 5, 2019

# ? Jun 5, 2019 12:16

apropos to nothing: Sep 5, 2003

BrainParasite posted:

Ok fair. So what changes would be needed to make DSA demcent?

well for starters the use of democratic centralism is contextual. its use is for running a revolutionary party. DSA isnt a revolutionary party, thats not meant as a dig its just not. turning it into one would require a lot of changes and i dont think thats what the vast majority of its members want. theres also not a checklist of things you do and then youre democratic centralist. the whole premise of the model is that its extremely flexible and allows revolutionaries the ability to adapt to rapidly changing situations while still maintaining internal democracy and maintaining connections to a national or international organization at all times.

I dont know enough about the internal democracy of the DSA to give a comprehensive idea of what would change, but just a few differences that i could see being important would be breaking larger chapters into many more smaller ones, having chapter meetings weekly, and focusing on having more political discussion at the chapter meetings. dues should probably go to national rather than chapters even if paid in cash to chapters, and endorsements for candidates should be a decision that is at least agreed to by both the national leadership and the local chapter leadership where the candidate is running. prolly most important would be expanding the political leadership at the national level. my understanding is the political leadership is the 16 person NPC. for an org that is 60k+ that seems way too small. we have around 50 people on our national leadership team and were not as big as the DSA is, plus we always have additional invited observers who arent on the leadership team but they come on and listen to the discussions and can contribute, just cant vote on proposals.

this all ensures that the leadership and rank and file are in communication with each other at all times. theres always political discussion happening at the smallest level of organization and everyone has access to at least 1 person locally who can inform them of discussions and decisions being taken nationally and national has voices and perspectives from members everywhere and of all different opinions. the centralization of resources makes it more effective when intervening in points of struggle because funds and resources can be moved immediately to the place theyre most needed rather than being tied up in a bunch of different geographically disparate locals, though the local branches do still have their own funds as well. we also have international structures as well but wont go into that but more or less functions the same with each national party having representatives on the international leadership.

# ? Jun 5, 2019 13:01