|
a politician that can be disciplined by an organization is one who can be elected with the support of that organization alone, and who cannot be elected without the support of that organization. there are currently no socialist organizations powerful enough to do this for national-level races: anyone who becomes a congressperson has the profile to raise money and build coalitions that can help them remain a congressperson, even doing things that disappoint any coalitions which got them there, because those coalitions are too small and diffuse and ideologically vague to effectively punish them. so, do things that make your political movements bigger, denser, and clearer.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
yeah for all her foibles i like aoc more than dislike her but the fact of the matter is that the NYC DSA comes in like, fourth, of the various political groups that actually got her into power and so any attempt on her part to advance our political program is going to flow completely out of her personal preferences. i'd still put her in the "wins" column but she's more an indication of the general populace's increasing acceptance of lefty ideas than of the DSA's leverage
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
I think what I'd like is some idea of how you "build power" in any organization without that same organization becoming infested with careerist liberals along the way. Like it's easy to say "well this is what the DSA needs to do to build power" but the DSA is itself softening on M4A rhetoric even right now, so even if I stand behind DSA and continue to participate, pay my dues, etc. - which is up in the air at this point but assuming I do: there is every indication that by the time they become "influential" they will be influential in all the wrong ways. They will be more like MoveOn or the Working Families Party or one of the other hundreds of orgs attached to the Democratic party, where their purpose is definitely to get candidates elected, but the method by which they do it is disciplining their membership as opposed to maintaining discipline among the people they help get elected. I mean they are already well on their way there with this stupid loving campaigning for Jon Ossoff of all people, and at least in my chapter disciplining people over voting for amendments meant to make GND language have more teeth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
IS the dsa softening m4a rhetoric even now? i guess each chapter is different but insofar as i've seen debates about the moderation of language it's been about like, police abolition, not backing off from the demand for single payer health care
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 03:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:IS the dsa softening m4a rhetoric even now? i guess each chapter is different but insofar as i've seen debates about the moderation of language it's been about like, police abolition, not backing off from the demand for single payer health care
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I'm thinking of that press release that mischaracterized the procedure to putting M4A to a vote (essentially giving Pelosi a pass) and the general response to FTA which, even if you disagree with the tactics being proposed, painting people in favor as enemies or grifters or whatever is actively harmful. So gently caress them for that. Also just kind of annoyed at my chapter for poo poo like, again, calling out people for proposing language to harden GND stuff a bit, because the folks doing the proposing didn't attend all the meetings (the person doing the calling out, and who presumably did attend all the meetings, is also the person who spearheaded the loving Jon Ossoff stuff for my chapter, so I can hardly fault someone for failing to participate in a group led by them ffs). okay see you're ALSO blending the specific parliamentary tactic of forcing a floor vote with the actual material result of establishing single payer health care. the press release in no way softened the DSA's now-boilerplate rhetoric that health care is a human right, we must pass m4a and assure that all health care is free at point of service and covers all possible treatments including abortion and gender-affirming surgery and so forth. this is widespread DSA dogma and not even the most conservative biden-canvassing north star psychos say different. and you know what? the FTV people ARE dilettante grifters, and, insofar as they literally say that organizing itself is wrong or that the "institutional left" is some sort of corrupt, gatekeeping elite, they ARE functionally enemies of the actual movement for socialism. fortunately they're losing steam and relevance at breakneck speed: undergoing their own sectarian splits, plaintively calling for a general strike, etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:14
|
|
|
to be fair the institutional left to what tiny extent it exists is pretty suck. north star and the other olds can gently caress off if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
Uh, no I'm not blending those two things. I'm not even a FTV person: per above I think they just shouldn't have voted for Pelosi to be Speaker, period. National implied that Pelosi could not bring M4A to a floor vote unilaterally, presumably to minimize any negative reaction to The Squad among their more leftist followers esp in DSA. This is wrong in a procedural sense (she can) as well as a pragmatic sense (even if the rules forbade her from doing it literally unilaterally, she could make it happen if she chose). And that's totally separate from the wisdom of pulling all the stops to force her to do that, btw, which I also question (but I'm not out there calling proponents of FTV grifters and freaks, either). How is any of that confusing anything with the actual material impact of establishing single payer health care?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:22
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:to be fair the institutional left to what tiny extent it exists is pretty suck. north star and the other olds can gently caress off if you ask me. north star can taste my shoe, but what i understood FTV to mean by "the institutional left" was like, the dsa as a whole and other established socialist orgs, almost none of which gave a poo poo about their cute idea BUT almost all of which constituted market share that FTV might have perceived themselves as competing for Ferrinus has issued a correction as of 05:26 on Jan 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:22
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Uh, no I'm not blending those two things. I'm not even a FTV person: per above I think they just shouldn't have voted for Pelosi to be Speaker, period. even if that dsa press release was wrong with regards to pelosi's various procedural powers, it in no way constituted a softening of M4A rhetoric. the DSA is staunchly behind universal health care and almost 100% united behind the specific demand to achieve that in the USA by granting universal access to the existing "medicare" program. if there's official DSA communications or even high profile figures backing off the demand for universal health care (with specific provisos like how it can't be predicated on citizenship status or restricted to "necessary" procedures) that is news to me
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:north star can taste my shoe, but what i understood FTV to mean by "the institutional left" was like, the dsa as a whole and other established socialist orgs, almost none of which gave a poo poo about their cute idea BUT almost all of which constituted market share that FTV might have perceived themselves as competing for i didn't say they were right, but you know, just that specific statement was technically correct. but they clearly don't even know what that dumb phrase even means, so whatever
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:26
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:i didn't say they were right, but you know, just that specific statement was technically correct. but they clearly don't even know what that dumb phrase even means, so whatever if you take "institutional left" to mean specifically those leftists friendly to or actually in institutions, i guess? but the funny thing is that they're sort of even wrong there, because surely m4a is one of the few good things that north star actually IS in favor of, while they're angrily throwing their hats down and stomping them at the thought of that solidarity with cuba resolution passing at last convention
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:33
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:even if that dsa press release was wrong with regards to pelosi's various procedural powers, it in no way constituted a softening of M4A rhetoric. the DSA is staunchly behind universal health care and almost 100% united behind the specific demand to achieve that in the USA by granting universal access to the existing "medicare" program. if there's official DSA communications or even high profile figures backing off the demand for universal health care (with specific provisos like how it can't be predicated on citizenship status or restricted to "necessary" procedures) that is news to me  There is other stuff. Like being against M4A apparently doesn't disqualify you from campaign help from DSA, for example, and AOC in particular is doing the "access to healthcare" poo poo now which I can't wait to hear the excuses for. I think more than anything it strikes me that while opinion amongst the broader left over FTV seems divided, amongst elected "leftists" at the federal level anyhow the opinion was unanimously against, and I am instinctively (and that is not to say correctly) suspicious of anyone who will take a side unanimously agreed upon by the political class - or a fraction of the political class as the case may be - but that is contentious among the rest of us ("us," in this case, being the left). But, again, you will tell me that actually there is very little difference of opinion on the left over this, and the people pushing FTV were grifters and dilettantes, so I doubt we're going to have a meeting of minds here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:00
|
|
|
yes, in my experience the organized left is nearly unanimously uninterested or against (while legislators are LITERALLY unanimously against for more straightforward and sometimes malign reasons). like the reason dore and gray and so on went off on the dsa so much is that their big idea went ignored BY most of the dsa. apparently SAlt likes it, but that doesn't surprise me because treating rhetoric as though it has physical force is a trot staple
Ferrinus has issued a correction as of 06:27 on Jan 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:24
|
|
|
Well in that case say what you like about SA, but "what you say is important" is certainly a refreshing take in an era when "Q: do you support Medicare For All? A: No" is not a dealbreaker and "access to healthcare" rhetoric from the most prolific DSA politician is passing apparently unnoticed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
most people like to vary their diction in the course of speech and writing in order to keep things fresh for both themselves and their listeners. i'm sure aoc has said the phrase "access to healthcare" at some point you might have said "right to healthcare" and for sure the word "access" has been used as code for "gently caress you" across the board, but i have seen no evidence that ocasio-cortez, tlaib, etc have actually backed down on their support for m4a as a policy. like, literally, if we had medicare for all, we would all have access to health care. we don't all have access to health care now because we can't afford it. i don't have "access" to a private jet. there is not a good reason to believe that any of the high-profile politicians who endorsed bernie are secretly anti-m4a. aoc is clearly not a marxist and probably doesn't support a wide variety of things that i personally feel are more important (though in many cases less achievable) than m4a would be, but if you believe that she and her ilk are actually your enemy on something as milquetoast as single payer healthcare (as opposed to, like, ending imperialism) then you have psyched yourself out somehow
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 07:11
|
|
|
Can you provide and examples of AOC or DSA pivoting to "access to healthcare" because traditionally it has been something we have called out relentlessly and I haven't seen that shift.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 07:14
|
|
|
it's just a couple throwaway instances and you might roll your eyes at it, but some of us are deeply suspicious considering aoc once claimed a house vote on m4a was a good idea and then suddenly started poisoning the idea of a vote the exact moment people started demanding it. she did not just say ftv was wrong. she said voting on m4a this congressional term was wrong and hurts m4a period. https://twitter.com/AliAbunimah/status/1346854291634532356 https://twitter.com/SamuelUlisesC/status/1346895133149712388
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 07:25
|
|
|
sounds like she doesn't expect medicare for all to pass under a biden presidency, even with the majority that wins in georgia deliver. frankly i agree
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 07:33
|
|
|
as for the dsa, they have not pivoted to "access to healthcare." they have pivoted to saying (falsely) that the speaker cannot unilaterally bring m4a to a vote, the bill cannot be voted on because it lacks financing language (?), and that the dsa has no leverage unless it has sufficient sympathetic members across 6 committees and a majority of democratic representatives cosponsoring (?). https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1346620453696266240 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 07:34
|
|
|
someone correct me if i'm wrong on this one because i don't know much about parliamentary procedure, but the implication of the dsa statement seems to be that m4a isn't even going to get put on a house calendar until it passes through various committees, and therefore it won't even be on the list of bills that pelosi can call a vote for by sheer fiat, whether or not pelosi even would do that were it put in front of her note that this has nothing to do with whether the dsa actually supports m4a as a policy. you have been tricked into believing that the stunt is the same as the actual objective
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 07:44
|
|
|
and yes im well aware i might look like a deranged person cherry picking this type of stuff out, but aoc used to be sensitive to the phrase "access to healthcare" https://twitter.com/AOC/status/985535201517490179
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 07:48
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:someone correct me if i'm wrong on this one because i don't know much about parliamentary procedure, but the implication of the dsa statement seems to be that m4a isn't even going to get put on a house calendar until it passes through various committees, and therefore it won't even be on the list of bills that pelosi can call a vote for by sheer fiat, whether or not pelosi even would do that were it put in front of her Ferrinus posted:note that this has nothing to do with whether the dsa actually supports m4a as a policy. you have been tricked into believing that the stunt is the same as the actual objective
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 07:51
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:and yes im well aware i might look like a deranged person cherry picking this type of stuff out, but aoc used to be sensitive to the phrase "access to healthcare" she is speaking extemporaneously in some kind of social media livestream in the video that you are contrasting with a carefully composed and formatted tweet. that said, like i said, her extemporaneous speech is probably correct: expanding "access" to healthcare could be the best we can hope for from the democratic majority secured in the georgia races MSDOS KAPITAL posted:you are, as far as I know, wrong am i? do bills get to leap onto the house calendar before passing through one or more committees? this doesn't seem to be the case quote:The reaction to the proposed stunt as well as a couple other things I've mentioned, I think indicate that they are softening on the position. only if the stunt is the same as the objective, which it isn't!!! they got you!!!! this is the exact same trick as "oh, you want to defund the police? i guess you don't care about children's safety"
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 08:20
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:am i? do bills get to leap onto the house calendar before passing through one or more committees? this doesn't seem to be the case Ferrinus posted:only if the stunt is the same as the objective, which it isn't!!! they got you!!!! Maybe AOC or the DSA, or both, are playing n-dimensional chess. But I already lived through the early Obama Presidency so that poo poo sounds pretty familiar to me. And it didn't really pan out last time, either. I don't have a lot of trust for institutions like DSA, and I don't have a lot of trust for politicians like AOC. I had more in the past than I do now, but they are using it up. There's still some! But less. And they are doing nothing to generate new trust, either. So when I compare the likelihood of either of them playing the long game, to the likelihood of, in the case of AOC merely acting in her best interest as a politician first and foremost, and in the case of DSA sacrificing principles to remain relevant in the face of an unraveling electoral strategy and ossifying political class, well I can't say for certain which I consider the safer bet. But, while I have some reason to give them benefit of doubt, I don't feel like I have a lot, and again the Jon Ossoff poo poo, and some other things, in the case of DSA at least kind of inform that, and you haven't really made a strong case here that I should give them a break. MSDOS KAPITAL has issued a correction as of 10:12 on Jan 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 10:10
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:The Speaker sends bills to committee at his or her sole discretion. Presumably they can bypass committees as well, although I'm sure decorum dictates that this is never actually done. Regardless, the statement "Speaker Pelosi alone can't deliver us a floor vote" is flatly untrue. If she supported, or was pressured to support, a floor vote, then a floor vote would happen, either at her sole discretion per the rules of the House, or by pushing it through committee to the floor. your posts read like cointelpro shitposts. on the offchance you are a dues-paying member, stop paying your dues and gently caress off out of the thread and all cspam threads since you just post anti-dsa poo poo in every thread you post in. If you are a member and have a complaint about some georgia chapter, loving complain to national. all your recent posts in this thread and all other threads are about is trying to stir up poo poo about things that have no chance of succeeding. here, read on practice by mao, he'll tell you you're being a dumbfuck. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 11:47
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:yes, in my experience the organized left is nearly unanimously uninterested or against (while legislators are LITERALLY unanimously against for more straightforward and sometimes malign reasons). like the reason dore and gray and so on went off on the dsa so much is that their big idea went ignored BY most of the dsa. apparently SAlt likes it, but that doesn't surprise me because treating rhetoric as though it has physical force is a trot staple I think that’s a funny characterization since the reason we in SA support the force the vote idea is because it’s precisely the kind of tactics that we used to get real change accomplished like 15 an hour passed in Seattle and other cities, to defund the police, and to win the tax Amazon bill. we don’t support it because it’s empty rhetoric that sounds nice we support it because it’s precisely the kind of methods that we’ve used to win victories time and time again, and many of those victories were during times when socialist ideas were not as popular as they are today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
like force the vote is basically what got the first 15 an hour passed in a major city. kshama campaigns on it and won. comes into office and she is pulled aside by “progressive councilors” who say ok you had your fun but we’re not gonna support this but maybe we can find some other things we could support to work on and she said no I was elected to pass this and I’m gonna put it forward and if you want to vote against it that’s on you and you’ll have a movement to answer to over it. and she brought it forward and it sparked a debate that forced a lot of those same councilors to give in and vote for it out of fear. so basically it’s the same situation. you have democrats telling aoc we’re not gonna ok this but drop it and we can work on this stuff which we can pass and she’s accepted that. instead she should say nah we need Medicare for all and force a vote. maybe it would pass through mass mobilizations, maybe it wouldn’t. but I can tell you 100% that such a fight and a conscious attempt to recruit out of it and use that momentum to continue to pressure elected officials to give us m4a would go a lot farther to growing the ranks of the socialist movement right here and right now than saying “well we won’t get it passed under Biden so just wait 2 years to vote in more house reps and senators and then 4 years so we can elect elizabeth Warren or whoever else.” when you say well we can’t get it passed under Biden that isn’t a call to get active and fight that’s a call to give up and at best come back in 4 years. that doesn’t mean lying to people and saying it can get passed under Biden, it means being frank and truthful and telling people the only way we are going to win Medicare for all under Biden is a mass movement by millions of working people willing to strike and protest for it and fight for it. that’s a call to action and forcing a vote with that in mind and using it as an opportunity to explain that to people would go a long way to building class consciousness and getting more people active and interested in DSA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
once again apropos is completely correct. the m4a movement has been around long enough that we've already seen the 'gently caress it, lets try next election' stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:The Speaker sends bills to committee at his or her sole discretion. Presumably they can bypass committees as well, although I'm sure decorum dictates that this is never actually done. Regardless, the statement "Speaker Pelosi alone can't deliver us a floor vote" is flatly untrue. If she supported, or was pressured to support, a floor vote, then a floor vote would happen, either at her sole discretion per the rules of the House, or by pushing it through committee to the floor. alright you've gotten me to actually do some research on this. here's the first thing i dug up: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22299.pdf it appears to me that m4a, which is already in several committees (and thus not subject to "Rule XIV") would need to be subject to "truncating committee action", which requires unanimous consent, which obviously does not exist for medicare for all. in order to use her fiat power to bring m4a to a floor vote, pelosi would first need to exercise her fiat power to change several existing rules or precedents that the house runs by. so actually what's being asked for is a series of parliamentary procedures which changes if and how bills move through committees generally, in order to THEN rescue one particular bill from the three or four committees it's currently enmeshed in, so that it can be voted on? providing all the "no" votes the additional cover of "well it hasn't been through X committee so i can't trust that it's sound on X logistical issue, as much as i dearly love the idea and wish the american people had healthcare"? that tweet from gray you posted was definitely wrong or at least inapplicable to the DSA statement, because moving a bill from committee -> calendar is different from moving a bill from calendar->floor vote. the dsa statement is about escaping committee, the gray tweet is about escaping the calendar. there's no "flatly untrue" here; they are actually consistent with each other, because each describes a separate half of the problem quote:I'm not sure why you keep harping on this point: I'm ambivalent to the strategy of forcing a vote and I recognize that it's not going to result in M4A getting passed and perhaps not even appreciably further the cause of M4A in general. But again, I don't have the ire for those proposing these tactics and I totally don't understand the people who do: frankly I find it loving weird. I do think that if you shield politicians from criticism when they are flatly saying "now's not the time", to the point of offering specious (see above - again, one way or another you're wrong) justifications of their behavior, when that criticism is coming from people who support precisely the policy you claim to also support, then your actions and your potential motives should be closely scrutinized. And that's what I've been doing. And so in that light the other stuff I've mentioned, takes on added meaning and significance. Like I'd be annoyed at DSA for lending support to Ossoff anyway, but at the same time as all this as well? Yeah that's a poo poo sandwich. okay so now instead of softening its rhetoric on medicare for all, dsa is merely "shielding politicians from criticism" on medicare for all. but, shielding politicians from criticism is actually legitimate when the criticism is stupid, like if there were a "kill the vote" movement demanding that aoc personally assassinate nancy pelosi. to deflect a criticism only constitutes backsliding from support of m4a if the criticism legitimately pertains to achieving m4a, which it does not in this case. you have, once again, confused the publicity stunt with the actual objective, assuming that anyone who doesn't like the first must not like the second. completely separately, i don't really know what the georgia DSA is doing. presumably they supported ossof and whoever else because they wanted to achieve a democratic majority in the senate in the face of the democratic win in the presidential election. personally i would never campaign for the democrats because i hate them, but i would think that you and your ilk actually approve of this strategy because it denies the democrats (some of) their usual excuses for not passing good legislation, exposing them, as it were apropos to nothing posted:I think that’s a funny characterization since the reason we in SA support the force the vote idea is because it’s precisely the kind of tactics that we used to get real change accomplished like 15 an hour passed in Seattle and other cities, to defund the police, and to win the tax Amazon bill. we don’t support it because it’s empty rhetoric that sounds nice we support it because it’s precisely the kind of methods that we’ve used to win victories time and time again, and many of those victories were during times when socialist ideas were not as popular as they are today. see, this is what i'm talking about. are there any pertinent differences between passing a 15 dollar minimum wage in seattle and destroying the health insurance industry from washington dc? have extremely public battles involving either or both of these issues already happened with varying results? no, it must be the rhetoric and party affiliation that made the difference
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:okay so now instead of softening its rhetoric on medicare for all, dsa is merely "shielding politicians from criticism" on medicare for all. but, shielding politicians from criticism is actually legitimate when the criticism is stupid, like if there were a "kill the vote" movement demanding that aoc personally assassinate nancy pelosi. to deflect a criticism only constitutes backsliding from support of m4a if the criticism legitimately pertains to achieving m4a, which it does not in this case. you have, once again, confused the publicity stunt with the actual objective, assuming that anyone who doesn't like the first must not like the second. fermun posted:your posts read like cointelpro shitposts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:see, this is what i'm talking about. are there any pertinent differences between passing a 15 dollar minimum wage in seattle and destroying the health insurance industry from washington dc? have extremely public battles involving either or both of these issues already happened with varying results? no, it must be the rhetoric and party affiliation that made the difference there are differences, but im describing methods and tactics which can be applied, with some modifications, in a variety of circumstances. i have applied them with success in various circumstances. its not just about rhetoric or party affiliation, these are concrete methods. like if you "force the vote" and thats all you do just call a vote and it fails and thats that, then yeah thats a terrible method. thats not what i described, i outlined a way to use a vote on the issue as a way to mobilize and activate more people around the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
fermun posted:your posts read like cointelpro shitposts. on the offchance you are a dues-paying member, stop paying your dues and gently caress off out of the thread and all cspam threads since you just post anti-dsa poo poo in every thread you post in. If you are a member and have a complaint about some georgia chapter, loving complain to national. all your recent posts in this thread and all other threads are about is trying to stir up poo poo about things that have no chance of succeeding. here, read on practice by mao, he'll tell you you're being a dumbfuck. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm lmfao
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:alright you've gotten me to actually do some research on this. here's the first thing i dug up: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22299.pdf Or it could just use existing house suspension rules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_the_rules_in_the_United_States_Congress posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
prior to just a few weeks back, I did not expect that some of medicare for all's most implacable foes would be the DSA and similar organizations and groups. it is now a lot more apparent why electoralism is a quicksand pit and that the DSA and others as a sinks for money and time
bedpan has issued a correction as of 20:16 on Jan 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:My chapter essentially got taken over by the local YDSA chapter who have managed to transform everything into an endless roberts rules of order procedural discussion and who have drive away pretty much every connection we might have had to unions, immigrants rights movement, etc. My experience with area DSA is similar but the individuals do some things locally. But otherwise the chapter leadership has no overall goals or organization. Like I'm in a position I can do work for people but I'm not going to spearhead anything for an org. If they have tasks that need done, I want them to contact me and tell me what work to do with the tasks outlined to further their goals. What I don't have time for is sitting around talking about theory and whatever. Really they have massive leadership issues trying to get consensus for everything. Like gently caress just delegate the decision making to someone and get something done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
my eyes glaze over at house procedural bullshit, political capital isn't real and i cannot believe there isn't a mechanism for the most left leaning members of congress to make a stink about universal healthcare. that said i dont see what yelling at the dsa means they're not responsible for electoral representatives do or don't
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
I know even less about seattle's parliamentary procedures than I do Congress but it seems to me that the key difference with the SAlt/Sawant successful fight for 15 is that Sawant had some direct procedural power to make that happen. In this scenario, AOC/Tlaib do not, and removing the parliamentary obstacles to a M4A vote depends entirely upon Pelosi, who is ideologically opposed to everything involved in doing that. To then call the squad fake friends over M4A because they literally cannot force pelosis hand on this seems really, incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I don't have anything to add on this but I'm marveling at the, in one breath, comparing FTV to a campaign asking AOC to assassinate Nancy Pelosi and then, in the very next breath, complaining about comparisons between FTV in Washington DC and $15 min wage in Seattle. hmm, you seem to have chosen not to answer me and instead feign some combination of ignorance and illiteracy regarding my use of extreme examples to illustrate a logical point. for the sake of the audience i'm going to pretend you're being serious: while nancy pelosi is the enemy of socialism, an attempt by aoc to kill her would not advance the cause of passing a medicare for all bill. thus, objecting to the call to give aoc a gun is not the same as backsliding on support for m4a, prioritizing "shielding politicians from criticism" over passing m4a, etc. all of what you're saying only makes sense if spending existing leverage on forcing a vote would actually bring m4a closer to fruition. but if it wouldn't - and, incidentally, it wouldn't - you're just blowing smoke up my rear end and attempting to confuse a publicity stunt with an actual organizing objective. see, look at this guy: bedpan posted:prior to just a few weeks back, I did not expect that some of medicare for all's most implacable foes would be the DSA and similar organizations and groups. it is now a lot more apparent why electoralism is a quicksand pit and that the DSA and others as a sinks for money and time same poo poo! they got him too! he thinks that being an implacable foe of FTV is the same as being an implacable foe of medicare for all, because he has completely identified a do-nothing parliamentary maneuver with single payer health care itself! they got him! tragic! this is why i actually think the FTV movement is actively detrimental to left organizing and not just the usual kind of do-nothing liberalism HiHo ChiRho posted:Or it could just use existing house suspension rules it could... but that says that the speaker can motion for a suspension of the rules, which then requires a 2/3rds majority of members present to actually vote for and confirm the suspension of the rules. will 2/3rds of members present vote to bring m4a to a floor vote despite the fact that it's still technically bogged down in three or four different committees? ah, but by voting not to let it skip out of committees, perhaps they will be revealing themselves. at last we'll know where raul m. grijalva stands on exempting m4a from the ways and means committee!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
don't they have enough votes between them to install a republican as speaker
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 20:30
|
|
