|
Eustace posted:NC DSA member here. I'm working on getting a chapter organized in Asheville. Do any of y'all know what other socialist groups think of the DSA? I'm pretty new to the leftist circular firing squad, so I wanted to get a feel for what the other socialist groups in town are going to accused me of. I'm a member of Socialist Alternative. The only "leftist circular firing squad" is over tactics; we all want to destroy capitalism. An example is DSA openly endorsed Sanders for president, SA "supported" him and told him to run as an independent but didn't endorse, and ISO said he's an imperialist social democrat. They all used Sanders to grow their base, just different approaches. We all still should work in solidarity with each other as much as possible though. I'm in the process of helping some organizers from DSA get a branch started up in my town now as well as helping some students at the local college get a YDSA branch up, even though I'm not a member. I'm not trying to block them or convert them, I'm giving them help and connections and going to their meetings. We're all comrades, even if our acronyms are different.
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
This is an argument almost as old as socialism itself. Basically the DSA is using entryist tactics to try and shift the dems leftward or maybe go about a french turn eventually down the line. I tend to disagree with these tactics just based off of how they have worked in the past, specifically in france during the 30s and labour militant in britain during the 70s and 80s. We'll see how it works out for DSA, I'm obviously hoping that they are successful even if I don't think they will be.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:What about third-parties that start local-only and build up to state-level seats? Any precedent there? That's sort of what SA is in the process of doing right now. They have Sawant as a council member but they ran Sawant as a state house rep first, then later ran Jess Spear for the house seat (both losses). They also ran Ty Moore for a seat in Minneapolis and Seamus Wheaton in Boston who both lost in 2013. This year they're running Ginger Jentzen in Minneapolis for a city council spot.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Identity politics become a problem when and if they fail to build solidarity. It's the difference between campaigning to get more minority representation to fills seats in corporate board rooms versus burning the board rooms down. The former helps elevate marginalized individuals into positions of power while ignoring how those who are not elevated remain marginalized. The second empowers all people regardless of the degree or extent of their oppression by democratizing the material conditions of society. When liberals use identity politics, it's just an attempt to make the economic and political elite more diverse, not to actually equalize and democratize society to any meaningful degree. This can lead to stuff like right now where you have liberals laughing at and mocking poor whites who might suffer under trumps policies because some of them voted for him. It's not right to laugh or mock someone based on their class and the poverty they experience. The fact that they voted for trump is a problem and they are not automatically absolved of that by being poor, but it doesn't help build any kind of class consciousness to mock them on the basis of their class, that's just economic elitism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:good post Thanks. This article does a really good job of elaborating on what I mean: https://www.socialistalternative.org/2015/11/02/identity-politics-struggle-oppression/ Additionally, on last week's This is Hell! Jodi Dean spoke about this towards the end of her interview, which I would suggest listening to all the way through anyway because Jodi Dean is probably my favorite living communist: https://thisishell.com/interviews/942-jodi-dean Finally, Vivek Chibber kind of tangentially covers this in a talk he gave where he speaks about how socialists specifically organize around class because it is the most effective way to achieve equality for groups in all aspects of their lives, race, class, gender/sexuality, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzhVLRbbvVA
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Also I hope it's OK to post in here. I'm not a member of DSA and can't become a member because I'm a member of SAlt and DSA specifically bars members from also being affiliated with any democratic centralist organization, but I still see ya'll as comrades. Myself and other members of SAlt in my area have been working with and trying to coordinate with the DSA in our area as much as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
One thing to point out is that some of the first libertarians were libertarian socialists and much of the movement grew out of socialist and anarchist thought (though the way we understand it now, it has definitely grown far away from that today). Lenin in The State and Revolution even calls the state the structure which controls the class conflict endemic to capitalism. To many early socialists, the idea of the state as it was and still is conceived of would disappear once the final victory of one class, the proletariat of course, was achieved over the other. It's common in the US especially to view socialism as simply more state power, but we as socialists recognize this as absurd since no true socialist would say that the army or the police are in any way socialist institutions (though liberals sometimes will). I think many libertarians are drawn to the ideology from the idea of wanting control of their economic future without state interference. Socialism actually provides that by giving control of the economy back to workers and democratizing the economic forces of society. Obviously this line of thinking doesn't work on wealthy libertarians who basically want to own everything, but there are many poor and working class libertarians who just need to have their class consciousness raised. There is definitely a big gap to jump in america though in getting people to accept collectivist politics since they are so heavily indoctrinated in ideas of individualism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
What if any opinion do ya'll have about DSA being part of Socialist International? I've heard there's a movement to pull out and personally I think that would be a good move but I'm curious what actual members think about it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:The members who want to leave Socialist International want to do so because it is not actually socialist. For example, its member parties are mostly lovely centrist parties like Labour, the Fench Socialist party, the German SPD, the Indian Congress party, PASOK, the PRI (lol), etc. This. SI is decidedly un-socialist. For those who are new to socialism and the importance of internationals, socialism is obviously an ideology that rejects nationalism and embraces internationalism. As such, typically the way to think about socialist parties is that the party is the international organization and the state or national level parties are just the national sections of that party. In practice this isn't always how it turns out but that's the idea behind most socialist parties and internationals. I know for many people it might seem like a "who gives a poo poo" thing but it really is important because funds and organizing efforts within the organization typically go back to the international. This isn't really the case so much for SI because it's not really socialist, but the international party affiliation is pretty important for most socialist parties because the idea is that all the constituent national parties are all working together.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I don't understand the need to devote brainpower to things like this (ie. Infighting over labels) when liberals are at their weakest point in 30 years. I would actually argue that this is the point more than any other where real vigorous debate should and must be occurring among socialists, especially about our tactical approach to addressing the issues you mention. The reason I say this is precisely because the call to act is so strong right now, yet many actions are either futile or will in no way help build the movement for working people and socialism. A good example of this is the effort put in by many activists and orgs to try and lobby the electoral voters to vote against Trump. Now I'd say this was prolly not something that anyone interested in socialism would be trying to push for or agitate around because it's so obviously not going to do anything to build working class power, but there were many working class individuals and leftists who did devote time and energy to this. A better example now is the debate that I can almost guarantee will increasingly become a point of contention within the DSA which is whether or not it is appropriate or effective to remain in the Democratic party. The DSA has more than tripled it's membership, and I know in my area at least many of those new members come already ascribing to various Marxist and Leninist tendencies and are very much opposed to the Democratic Party and working within it. I can imagine there will be a lot of debate around this issue between the old guard who have been firmly committed to a model of social democracy and the newer members who identify as socialists. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 5-10 years the DSA experiences one or multiple splits over this very issue if the older leadership and the newer more radical membership base don't reach some sort of consensus. This isn't meant to be negative either, it's an important debate to be had because as socialists our power in the US is limited and so utilizing effective tactics and the correct approach to issues is vital. The DSA has grown immensely in a very short time which is great news for socialism in the US, but it also has the potential soon to become bogged down in serious debate and disagreement internally but what's key is that that debate is not necessarily bad, it can actually help refine and hone the organizations tactics to be more effective. Basically don't be discouraged by debate about theory and tactics because it will in the long run, if done constructively, lead to a more robust and effective organization.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:None of the other big socialist groups participate in electoral politics and looking how well they're doing! that's not true, most other socialist organizations in the US participate in electoral politics in some fashion, they just don't have the numbers to run nationwide or often even state level candidates. they also refuse to run as democrats because typically their analysis is that the democratic party is a capitalist party and so socialists should work to build independent power structures outside of it - a position I share personally.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
DSA and SA have been holding joint debates/discussions around the country on building the socialist movement under Trump. This weekend in NYC Kshama Sawant and Bhaskar Sunkara will be speaking. The event's supposed to be livestreamed on the 22nd with a link to watch posted on the event page when it starts: https://www.facebook.com/events/1836389983248453/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:Bernie Sanders has done more for socialism in America in the past 2 years than PSL, IWW, SAlt etc. have done in the past 15 years combined. This is really disingenuous and ignores the fact that a candidate like Sanders could not have emerged if it had not been for the re-emergence of working class politics over the past 5-10 years due to circumstances like the Occupy protests, the Wisconsin public sector union fight, the $15 an hour minimum wage, Black Lives Matter, etc. All of these actions and campaigns have been organized by on the ground activists in some of the organizations you mention and many others. It's fair to say that Sanders has really popularized the idea of socialism in the US but it's really crappy to disparage the work of socialists who have dedicated their lives to fighting capitalism. You might disagree with their tactics or approach and that's valid, but don't diminish their work or ascribe to some great man version of history where Sanders alone is the single reason socialist politics are gaining support right now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
RiotGearEpsilon posted:This isn't meant as a gotcha - how would coordinating with people in other countries serve our interests? They don't vote in our elections, they don't have agency over our ruling class, they don't have the same understanding of our local and state and federal issues that we do. I genuinely don't understand how international coordination is going to serve our interests. It might be something we want to do for moral/ethical reasons, but from a pure self-interest perspective, I'm sincerely not following you. When Socialist Alternative ran Kshama Sawant in Seattle we had comrades from around the world come and volunteer on that campaign. Similarly, now when a bunch of our comrades are facing prison sentences in Ireland for protesting austerity, we have raised funds and sent material support. The working class is international and being part of an international helps us work in solidarity across national borders, and it helps us to stay abreast of what's happening around the world. I feel like as socialists we want the liberation of working people everywhere, not just the few miles around our house. To do that, we need to work in a local capacity where we can have effect, but we can't neglect the national or international picture and the needs and struggles of workers around the world.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
I feel like people like to throw words they've learned on socialist meme pages around without having any clue what they reference. If international working class political revolution is "tankie" then every singe socialist that has ever existed is a tankie. Somebody earlier in the thread I think referenced the ISO and IWW as being tankie as well, which is really out of touch because the ISO is trotskyist and the IWW is made up of anarchists and trade unionists.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Here are a couple of resources that I think give good insight into how socialists should conceive of or interact with the idea of "identity politics." This article was written by Hannah Sell, a member of the Socialist Party of England and Wales, Socialist Alternative's sister party in the CWI: https://www.socialistalternative.org/2015/11/02/identity-politics-struggle-oppression/ This interview with Jessa Crispin talks about the limits of feminism that is not anti-capitalist in nature: https://thisishell.com/interviews/945-jessa-crispin This interview with Jodi Dean touches on the issue at the very end around the 32 minute mark, though the whole interview is really good in general but it doesn't specifically focus on ideas related to identity politics: https://thisishell.com/interviews/942-jodi-dean For my own take, what makes us socialists is specifically our analyses that the working class is the means by which societal change is achieved. This is because working people have the unique capability through their relationship to production and the historical trends that have brought them together, to actually challenge the forces of capitalism and bring about real democracy and equality. Whether you want to liberate women, persons of color, LGBTQ individuals, anyone, the most effective and most meaningful way to do so is through the working class. That's because these individuals ARE the working class and by organizing along their shared conditions then you help to breakdown the barriers that capitalism has imposed upon them to limit and constrict their solidarity. You will never see a more diverse group than a picket line. I've been in pickets with 20 people or less where every race, color, creed, gender, and sexual identity were present. The working class is diverse and we as socialists seek to empower them. If you fight for the working class, then you will always be fighting for equality and democracy for all people.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Yeah this is why I hope the DSA starts to take a harder stance and separate entirely from the dems. I know there are still a lot of people within ya'lls organization and within this thread who feel there is value in pursuing an inside/outside strategy but the internal structure and organization of the dems makes it unsuitable to working class politics. I also feel running within the democratic primary system confuses the political message of needing to build an alternative to the two capitalist parties. I know Maria Svart and Bhaskar Sunkara still hold to running candidates in whatever fashion they can get on a ballot line but at least in interviews it seems they are starting to embrace the idea of working towards building a socialist or labor party. A working class party needs to be built from the ground up. Not saying it's easy or quick, but it is what's needed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Police should not be part of a socialist organization. The tactics utilized by socialists to build working class power put them in direct confrontation and opposition to the police as an institution. Civil disobedience and strike action are some of the surest means of fighting for the working class, are often times illegal, and sure to promote retaliation from the police. Historically and even in to the present day, police forces have been used as strike breakers and are consistently used to confront and stop mass protests and civil disobedience. That doesn't necessarily mean that individual police might not be sympathetic to our cause and might even aid us in some ways. Even potentially individual police departments or units may be so, but as a whole they should be seen as an obstacle to be overcome and on no account should they knowingly be allowed in our organizations or be part of our decision making.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:If you can educate one cop he or she may be able to educate a few others. If you want to treat it as us vs. them, good luck. There's nothing wrong with trying to talk to cops or even be friendly to them on an individual or even organizational level, but tactically speaking socialist organizations are often forced to engage in illegal actions like civil disobedience and strikes with workers to win power for the working class. If you have police in your organization and especially if they participate in decision making, then they can much more easily and effectively sabotage your actions. This is not a moral judgement, we shouldn't dismiss police because they're evil or bad or whatever, it's just a matter of tactics and you cannot trust that a cop will put their ideological commitment over their commitment to their job. If your organization has police in it, then you are actively undermining your own organizational efforts. You put your membership at risk, as well as put at risk any individuals or organizations that attempt to work with you in solidarity.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:This just sounds like a compartmentalization issue. Like, you're not discussing illegal poo poo at your Sunday public meetings, right? Again "illegal poo poo" can include engaging in a strike or civil disobedience. If you're forced to separate your membership into separate tiers or groups, then you are actively undermining any democracy or transparency within your organization which is a whole other problem. Rather than split your membership, just don't let cops have membership or decision making abilities in your organization. I'm trying to come at this with the understanding that a lot of people in this thread and in general are new to labor activism and socialism generally, but not trusting police is a pretty universal concept on the left for good reason and I'd rather no one here have to learn that lesson the hard way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:So let me get this straight. Cops aren't allowed to join DSA? Is that an official policy somewhere? Does local have the authority to deny people membership without involving National? I'm not a member of DSA so I have no clue. My understanding is anyone is able and to join so long as they pay dues to national and don't do a couple of things that are specifically banned. I am sure there are cops who are part of DSA right now. I feel like this is a mistake and I've explained why. Police officers engage in anti-union and anti-working class activity often times as part of their job, which makes it very hard for them to be brought into class struggle, at least on the correct side anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Wait, as an attorney do I have to turn in my DSA card attorneys get us out of jail, not into it
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Recent article written by Socialist Alternative's Spokesperson Philip Locker on the growth of the DSA from our perspective. I think a lot of the questions posed are actually evident in this thread, specifically as regards the debate over dues, role of the national organization, etc. Obviously DSAs growth has really helped open up a space for socialist politics in the US which will hopefully only continue in the near term. https://www.socialistalternative.org/2017/07/05/dsa-grows-21000-socialist-party/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:On the topic of inter-left unity. The NH DSA, NH SA, and NH Socialist Coalition held a joint tabling event Saturday for those interested in Socialism. Awesome. Yeah I don't know of any cities or areas where cooperation between SA and DSA hasn't been occurring. Where I'm at we all get along and regularly send each other info about actions, campaigns, etc. The most sectarian arguments we get into are over whether pineapple on pizza is counter-revolutionary (it's not, the working class is entitled to all it creates, including pineapples).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
What ya'll are arguing about is how to reach the most people. This is an important argument to be had and I would encourage anyone who hasn't to read Trotsky's Transitional Programme as what ya'll are talking about is pretty much what he lays out as the basis for the 4th international. I'd encourage any socialist to read it all at least once but his comments on sectarianism and opportunism are especially relevant especially these points: "Sectarians are capable of differentiating between but two colors: red and black. So as not to tempt themselves, they simplify reality" "He who does not seek and does not find the road to the masses is not a fighter but a dead weight to the party. A program is formulated not for the editorial board or for the leaders of discussion clubs, but for the revolutionary action of millions." http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Trotsky/programme/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Right, as socialists we are for the abolishment of the police, but to proclaim it doesn't make it true. How would you even begin to campaign amongst the populace for the abolishment of the police? That's a demand that is divorced from the vast majority of people's perception of the world and one that is completely untenable with no steps towards achieving it's aim laid out. You can present a transitional demand to people though, something like community control of the police, or police forces drawn from their communities, etc. Organizing around tangible immediate goals creates short term goals that can be achieved and in fighting for these goals, workers are drawn into the idea of class struggle and recognizing that the reason these demands are a struggle is because of the nature and contradictions of capitalism. In this way, people begin to draw revolutionary conclusions and you build mass movements that are capable of challenging capitalism. In the same way that when tabling I don't shut to people that right now is the time to storm city hall and take control of the government because there is not the organization or mass power to do that and be successful. Instead, we focus on where workers are at now in their consciousness and help bridge the gap so to speak. People right now want $15 an hour. That's not a revolutionary demand, we should have an end to the wage system all together. Again though, that's divorced from what the vast majority of people can conceive of in their immediate material conditions and so we fight for $15 an hour now because that's where workers are at right now, and in doing so we help them to draw the understanding that these demands require such struggle because of capitalism and the only way to actually ensure justice and equality is by eliminating it all together.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Yeah I know I've posted about this in the past but if you are serious about socialist politics that means engaging in actions that might be arrest-able like strikes, occupations, blocking traffic, etc. Even trying to organize workers at private companies can and has gotten union organizers and leftists arrested or removed by police. whatever your opinion about cops and their place in society, socialist organizing directly puts socialists in opposition to cops in some very key ways and as such they should not be included in socialist orgs that are serious about labor organizing and mass politics. doesnt mean you cant be friendly to them, doesnt mean you cant try to convince them of your ideas, but if you are planning actions like blocking traffic, occupying places, or planning strikes, these actions can lead to arrest and confrontation with police and allowing police into your org where they might take part in meetings or planning for such actions can and will compromise the action and the org. not saying the dude elected to yalls leadership is a cop cause it sounds like hes a labor organizers who has worked with police unions and has been arrested himself. But the fact that he was arrested participating in protest should be clear evidence of exactly why you want to be cautious about cops being in your orgs because you will potentially be facing arrests in your activities just like he did.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Even more so than what actually happened, I think what's even more troubling is how many people here and elsewhere seem willing to defend allowing police into a nominally socialist organization. I keep harping on it and I'm sorry but if you are a socialist then one of your chief goals is to help organize working class people to stand up and exert their power over the capitalist class. The surest way to do this is through mass protest and labor strikes and police and police organizations work very hard to stop and undermine these actions because that is their whole purpose for existing. If you allow police into your organization and allow them to take part in decision making then they have the ability to actively undermine your efforts. Even assuming that there are police who would support the ultimate goals of socialists, the material reality is their support for arrestable actions can and would directly lead to conflict in terms of their employment and might lead to them being fired, reprimanded, etc. and it would be extremely dangerous to assume that these individuals would choose their dedication to socialism over their jobs since if they were actually that dedicated to socialism they probably would have picked a different profession in the first place or once they realized they were socialists. It;s unfortunate what happened but the aftermath has the potential to actually do a lot to help clarify what DSA is aiming to be. The organization has a lot of new membership that has honestly been unvetted in any way. There are anarchists working alongside police union organizers and that's a situation that really would be impossible to maintain indefinitely.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Minty posted:he's not a cop, you idiot I'm well aware that he is not a cop. I specifically said "Even more so than what actually happened, I think what's even more troubling is how many people here and elsewhere seem willing to defend allowing police into a nominally socialist organization." The real issue, as I have tried to point out, is how many individuals do not seem to understand the relationship of police to union and labor organizing. In this thread and in real life I've always tried to be patient and understanding about individuals not knowing this history or anything as they might be new to activism, and this is especially true of many new DSA members, but the fact remains that it is dangerous to have police in your organization. Whether it's OK to have a police union organizer as a leader in your organization is a different topic and it's something ya'll will obviously need to work out, but I think it's unfair to reject the concerns of individuals who do have an appreciation and understanding for the role police play in the maintenance of the capitalist state. More related to the issue at hand, what is the potential effect of the DSA needing to make a decision regarding an action or policy that might lead to arrest or confrontation with police? Is this individual going to allow his connections and work links to police affect a decision that relates to the DSA? I pointed out before he's already been arrested once before it seems so maybe not, but the conversation is important to have, even ignoring whether it was intentionally or unintentionally disingenuous to not include that work history to the delegates at ya'lls convention in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:danny fetonte seems to be getting a lot of attention right now... lol
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
I really don't understand all the hate for democratic centralism. I see it all the time in this thread and when I meet DSA people irl they treat it like some weird boogie man. Democratic centralism is literally just democracy. We all vote on something, make a decision based on that vote, and then do the thing we voted on. if you disagree with the decision, you still have to abide by it but can continue to voice your displeasure and attempt to reverse the decision at another vote. The reason its a big deal that people abide by the decision even if they disagree is because if you're actively engaging in disruptive activity like civil disobedience, you need to have a group that you know won't have someone go against the decision of the group by punching a cop or throwing a brick through a window and potentially risk getting all of you arrested. It also means you can have faith that your comrades in other areas are operating in about the same fashion so there's no worry that an individual or a whole branch in somewhere like, oh who knows let's just say Austin Texas, is making your org look bad by doing stuff that the rest of the org would never do and finds reprehensible. like it's fine if you dont like the idea of democratic centralism, nobody is forcing you to use it or like it, but its not This One Weird Trick to Summon the Ghost of Stalin.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:It's not a matter of faith, though, as the party members don't have a choice to act differently. To have faith in someone requires that you trust the person, so requiring party members to abide by decisions betrays a lack of it. And it's a recipe for a system in which no one trusts anybody else, which is also the general strategy of totalitarian systems. Trust is built through discussion and mutual goals and understanding. I don't have faith in other branches falling in line because they're forced to by some arbitrary system, I have faith in them acting in unison because I've talked to the leadership and talked to other local members and know we share the same values and tactics. after the violence in Charlottesville for example our community was faced with a potbetial visit by Richard spencer. we immediately began working towards building a community defense coalition with other left and even liberal groups locally. after we started this process we had a conference call with national and regional leadership where we discussed our national strategy going forward and we and other branches which had been forced to act quickly owing to local challenges had all been acting in the same way without having communicated prior to and with thousand of miles between us. our national decisions then came about because of the consensus our regional branches had found worked best with on the ground conditions, not some enforced directive from leadership arbitrarily deciding whatever they wanted.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:the responses to this were about what i'd expect lol I just dont get it at all. democratic centralism is literally how like every democratic structure I take part in works its just that only the socialist orgs call it democratic centralism. when my work democratically votes on rules that I dont like I still have to follow the rules while objecting to them and trying to build a case against the rule. in every other context this is understood as just how democracy works but for some reason when socialists do it its very bad.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:my understanding of democratic centralism is that the last bit of this sentence is not the case, as that causes factionalism which is what democratic centralism is explicitly trying to prevent I cant speak for other orgs but we have rules written into our constitution that set out how to go about forming caucuses or tendencies, especially for minority positions. I think a lot of people either forget or dont realize that Lenin and his clique were a small minority faction in the bolsheviks until after the february revolution and the publishing of the april theses.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i'm sure the soldiers soviets had absolutely no role what so ever in the russian revolutions this is extremely disingenuous. the russian soldiers who took part in the revolution were workers and peasants themselves who were mostly conscripts. I'm not saying that there isn't the potential for many currently and formerly serving US armed forces personnel to radicalize and become revolutionary but to compare the present day all volunteer US armed forces to the WW1 russian army in terms of their revolutionary potential is ridiculous
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:who do you think the average grunt is I know this is from pages ago but yeah, the average armed services member in the US is drawn from the working class, but they aren't conscripts they are volunteers. police officers are also almost entirely drawn from the working class and yet it seems like pretty much everyone in this thread and in socialist orgs in general agree that they shouldn't be part of our organizations. I don't think police in the US and soldiers in the US should be viewed as exactly the same but you cannot ignore the role that the US armed forces play in advancing US imperialism and global capitalism. You also can't ignore that all soldiers in the US join voluntarily. again, there is a huge difference between the russian peasant or worker less than 1 generation removed from slavery being forced to fight in an international war and the volunteer american service personnel who agree to occupy foreign nations and install and protect dictators. I'm not saying that current or former armed forces can't be socialists but at the very least there are some pretty significant contradictions there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
fermun posted:smdh, these dang troops joined voluntarily! they could have just stayed home and languished in poverty and died of an opiate overdose instead! anyone who chooses the one path that the entire loving system is designed to make them loving believe is a way to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty is a bad comrade! yemeni socialist: solidarity with the american comrade bombing the poo poo out of me right now! c'est la lute finale!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
if you wanna be flippant and dismissive there ya go. I'm not saying members of the armed forces can't be socialists and I'm not saying there aren't real material reasons why working people join the military but it's kinda ridiculous to say the US armed forces as they stand right now are equivalent to 19th-20th century conscription forces. I'm also just echoing jar of piss' point from way back that its pretty rich for somebody coming out of officer training school to try and say who should or shouldnt be a socialist
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
I think the issue is maybe made more clear if we stop grouping all service members together. I'd prolly split them into two types: enlisted individuals who are there for school, work, opportunity, etc. and careerists who see the armed forces as a path for advancement. the former definitely have revolutionary potential so long as they are able to recognize the problems of american imperialism and their potential contributions to it, the latter not so much because that understanding would get in the way of their advancement. the latter still could but it's a choice they have to make, can't do both. I know a local activist who is also a labor historian. he was part of a special forces unit (not sure which branch) stationed in latin america during the late 70s/early 80s. he became a labor activist because of his direct experiences seeing and participating in american imperialism first hand. I don't hold that against him and I consider him a comrade and ally. I don't think it's a case that soldiers are a lost cause or something, but there is a hurdle they have to get over of recognizing their service as a negative thing. for many that's not an issue but there are also many soldiers who supported bernie and universal healthcare and would prolly describe themselves as socialists but who still see their military service in a positive light. those people aren't like lost causes or something but it is something that prevents them from being socialists. being a socialist after all means desiring the replacement of capitalism via political revolution with a new form of social, economic, and political existence. someone who wants universal healthcare or a higher minimum wage but who still sees the US army as something good or noble is not a socialist because the US army actively works to prevent the creation of a new socialist society. doesn't mean they can't learn that fact, or can't be allies, or can't change. I'm actually a big proponent of allowing non-socialists into socialist orgs with the aim of helping to educate and radicalize them through engaging in class struggle. I don't think it's productive at all to keep anyone who isn't "pure" or "left" enough or whatever out, it's actually destructive to the movement. it's also important not to stake out the most far left or righteous political line for the sake of being correct - positions should always strive to bring the maximum number of people into class struggle as possible. it's still important though to recognize when views are counter to your stated goal and make sure people are reaching a correct understanding and not just brushing what might seem like a small disagreement under the rug; because ultimately it's not a small disagreement, it's a difference that points to a fundamental contradiction between their aims and yours/the orgs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:It seems kind of funny to say there can be no transitory period and then immediately say we should still push for reformist or transitory programs this is actually the basis for the transitional program, or trotskyism. the idea is that you have to meet workers where they are at in their day to day struggles. by fighting for transitional demands (for today in america, stuff like 15$ an hour, universal healthcare, etc.) you help draw people into the class struggle that might not have been drawn in by the idea of toppling the entire social order. in fighting for those demands though, they will draw revolutionary conclusions because once you start fighting for reforms it becomes apparent how impossible reforming the system into anything adequate becomes. thats a pretty watered down explanation but that's the gist of it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 23:45
|
|