|
There's probably one in your metro area you can google.
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Dreddout posted:Nah the Dems have always been a party for the elite. DSA people who think the Dems can be reclaimed should carefully study what happened to the Rainbow/PUSH coalition between 1984, when Jesse Jackson ran for president on a platform of multiracial social democracy (at the helm of an energized left wing coalition that even included Maoist factions), to 1992 when Bill Clinton won the general election thanks in no small part to Jackson's leftist activists, to 1994 when the same Bill Clinton signed the crime bill and enacted welfare reform.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Maybe you should teach us, because I was not aware of any serious attempt by Jacksons Org to "reclaim the Democratic Party" in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, the folks who did try to reclaim their party have someone in the white house. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/bernie-sanders-jesse-jackson-campaign here's an article that talks about Sanders and Jackson. interestingly in 1988, Sanders believed that Jackson would have been better off running as a third party candidate. oh well http://isreview.org/issue/61/can-left-take-over-democratic-party here's a piece about it from like 10 years ago https://socialistworker.org/2016/07/25/how-democrats-got-over-the-rainbow here's a more recent one from last year long story short: people have been trying since the 30's to do an entryism on the Dems and it has never worked. it has helped deliver a lot of votes for neoliberal Democrats though!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
well these guys ran candidates at all levels and negotiated over the party platform, mobilizing millions of people in an inside/outside campaign to push the party to the left but that doesnt seem relevant to taking over the party so i guess youre right
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
what in your mind constitutes a "serious attempt" to "take over" the party
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
are you suggesting it didnt try because it didnt succeed? or that it didnt actually mobilize millions of black and white working class and "progressive" (back then called "liberal") voters to get engaged with democrats and push it to the left?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
https://www.thenation.com/article/rainbows-gravity/ i mean its uncontroversial to say that Rainbow fought in primaries at all levels mostly because the dems created the DLC, superdelegates, and the super tuesday primary system to try to stop them
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
they didn't institute super delegates until 84. that was the first primary with super delegates. but after 84 they added many more super delegates, taking some away from big city mayors and giving them to congress and DNC officials.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Time to learn about the nonprofit industrial complex, chums! Turns out when you have a service-provision model that's not directly tied to a radical political ideology you end up chasing after money from philanthropists so you can do the job the government is supposed to be doing, and maybe you do some good but mostly you end up compromised!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
what do you call the fallacy where I loving Love Science, Randall Monroe, etc. is considered revolutionary
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
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. Example out of a hat - brutal police techniques refined in Israel are used in Ferguson, MO -- and vice-versa. US foreign policy plays a direct role not just in creating the refugee and immigration crises we have all around the world, but the US security state is just as active doing all the awful things "out there" it does here. The ruling class does not hesitate to collaborate, why shouldn't those who oppose them? gently caress. marry. t-rex posted:Because your locality is directly affected by the US National Government, and you need to build a power structure to interact with that, but foreign policy positions for a minority party are basically pointless grandstanding. The DSA has 0 power to change the US stance on Isreal, and it won't for a very long time so why waste all this breath. This is absolutely not true - an organization the size and scale of DSA can actually have an extremely important impact on a cause like the Israeli occupation. That's why so many anti-BDS bills have been introduced in otherwise "blue" states like Maryland and New York; the state has to use very blunt tools to deal with this emerging movement because it really does represent a threat to the status quo if the movement to sanction Israel becomes more widespread. What's more, it shows a dedicated and consistent anti-racist framework and stands in solidarity with racially oppressed people. Even if it's not a winning campaign yet (and, like I just said - judging from the response the BDS movement garners in the USA, I think it's defeatist to say it's a losing battle). Even from a purely selfish standpoint, taking a principled stand on US foreign policy is going to win the respect of working immigrant communities, especially those most at threat (Middle-Eastern, Latin American) from a Trump administration. Also, deciding only to fight "winning battles" is a fast track to triangulation and bullshit. It's ruling class ideology.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
There was some discussion in this thread a while ago re foreign policy and how counterterrorism policy is honed abroad and then deployed here (and vice versa). Saw this today and remembered that discussion and wanted to share this: https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27...e-insurgencies/
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
It's important to have bylaws imo (however informal they are) and you probably want them put together by the people using them. It's like eating your vegetables, for political organizing. Even if they're just a page or two long.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Wait, as an attorney do I have to turn in my DSA card join the lawyers guild imo
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
when you're a centrist you draw false equivalences between fascists and anti fascists. when you're a liberal in the DSA thread you do... the same thing. smdh
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
post instructions for joining the dues strike plz
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
daily reminderquote:We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
please stop adopting Robert’s Rules god drat. they are so bad, folks
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Why, and what would you propose instead for large group meetings? RR work okay in everyday use - when you probably aren’t following them religiously. As soon as a disagreement becomes entrenched enough, though, someone is going to start rules lawyering the 716-page document. In a mass organization it is probably not really appropriate to expect people to master a system designed for power users with the time to get acquainted with it. There are many alternative rules for conducting meetings - even large meetings - and none of them are ever explored because RR is a default. Consensus is kind of lovely for large meetings but there are other forms of parliamentary procedure and other procedures for running large meetings. I’m exploring some of them in my work outside the DSA and don’t have a favorite yet, but RR is a fuckin pill.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:I just don't know what RL Stephens wants! He's always just throwing tantrums and I'm here like ??? what do you want me to do. You could stop infantilizing him by referring to his posts as a tantrum, for starters. You could also take seriously his concerns about racism and sexism in the org, and his prescriptions for fixing them. They’re incomplete because they’re complex problems, maybe you could brainstorm something instead of shooting the messenger.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:whatever you do the best way to respond is by confirming all the noxious anticommunist propaganda is true but then saying none of that matters because we're gonna start from scratch and never have any problems yeah stalin was a paranoid guy who killed tens of millions of people for absolutely no reason but that's only because he was Georgian, here in America we can implement socialism without asiatic barbarism
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Serf posted:oh poo poo stalin was one of my people? i don't know, are you one of stalin's people? a tankie perhaps? *breaks out calipers*
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
we are on the verge of seismic realignments in American politics, it’s not unreasonable at all to think that one or both parties is likely to go the way of the Whigs in the next 5 years. but yeah the democrats are the graveyard of social movements so good luck to all the reformists out there
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:tl;dr - building a diverse org should be considered in every election and every candidate, and saying "we need X PoC and Y women" is tokenism at best and elevates unqualified people at worst
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
itt people confusing the movement (must be huge) with the party (must be cohesive) and being foolish as a result DSA is part of the movement but it’s not a party
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
if you’re bored at work watch this episode of fall of eagles and remember that Lenin was correct about the nature of the party while Martov was a dumdum
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
Triangle Shirt Factotum posted:We are still at step 1: Get Huge Well there’s a big difference between building a movement and building a party, they have totally different objectives and requirements.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
Triangle Shirt Factotum posted:Okay, I'm under the distinct impression that a movement comes first, and a party organizes out of that movement that addresses the needs and wants of the movement. Would you mind expanding on what you mean when you differentiate between party and movement and their objectives and requirements? A movement is a mass organization that advocates for something, a party is a professional organization that tries to channel and direct the mass movement for the purpose of attaining state power and using that to accomplish the objectives of the movement that got it there. I wouldn’t poo poo on this idea as a lot of affinity groups involved in pushing the big social movements of our time have ties to socialist party organs, as the right-wing press occasionally tries to freakishly explain.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The chief argument against civility is that its used to silence dissent i.e. its an extension of already existing power structures and therefore has to be subverted. A year ago I would have probably basically agreed with the postmodern take on this. But after a year's worth of dealing with (another leftwing organization) I have come around on it so loving hard. What others are calling "civility", I would call "respect". An organization where there is no respect is one that's going to break apart very very quickly. That doesn't mean you always have to be polite, or can't use bad words. But you have to respect people, and you have to respect the organization. It's the duty of the Chair (or whoever is facilitating a given meeting) to make sure that everyone is respected. And if the Chair, or the organization, is being disrespected or the meeting is being disrupted by people who are trying to kill the patient rather than cure it - there is no room for silence or complacency. That's a time when it's important to have "loyalty", in the old school sense of the word. There are a lot of people in left-wing spaces who confuse conflict - which is normal and healthy in any relationship or organization - with abuse. In fact, in most situations, people will get the two precisely wrong - they will confuse someone expressing a disagreement with someone trying to be a bully. And a lot of people will bend over backwards to excuse bullying behavior as someone expressing a legitimate viewpoint. Even more so if the bully in question is someone who cultivates the macho air of someone who is "doing the work" or whatever. I've seen, in the last eighteen months in left wing organizations, people organize the pettiest sort of cliques with the express purpose of bullying out people they find politically or personally disagreeable. Before, I took it as part of the way politics happen. But that poo poo is so toxic to your organization, you can't tolerate it. Because at the end of the day it really does just drive away people who lack the "privilege" to ignore it and power on through - and it's an attitude that treats people as disposable, or expendable - which I also don't think is acceptable. If you have to kick someone out for political reasons or for personal malfeasance, that's a conclusion that should be reached through the appropriate process (at least something that gives them notice and a chance to tell their own side of the story), not because a clique whispering behind someone's back makes them unpopular.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:i have no idea what the last three pages are about thesis: respectability politics antithesis: callout culture synthesis: my posting
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:yeah but i thought it was swamp maoists and participating in bourgeois politics and then we're here and i have no clue how that happened Oh beats me I’ve just had a stressful time with conflict and bad faith disrupters in movement spaces so I wanted to post about it and saw a chance
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
you would want to be careful about it and consult a local attorney. it’s been (rarely, I don’t remember if successfully) prosecuted as jury tampering, especially if you are explicitly targeting a particular trial
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2018 12:40
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:If it is the first of at least several, I can guess which chapter is next. this is what burnout looks like imo. burnout goes straight to this sort of behavior which then goes to splitting. people put unrealistic expectations on themselves and others. this tweet is a classic example of a tactical disagreement being leveraged unconstructively. imo
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dhs-secretary-kirstjen-nielsen-protesters-dinner rip that person’s job
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2018 12:00
|
|
|
I don’t see any takeaway from any of this except that social media and electronic communication is unambiguously bad for people and orgs except for limited announcement purposes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
There’s a lot of different ways to approach security culture but in an org like DSA you are probably best off just making all the meetings open to the public and to assume that the public is attending them. That doesn’t rule out booting disruptive people like these Veritas operatives of course.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
start purging bowman and you won’t stop until you’re a nice trim marcyite org. npc made the right call, put him on notice he won’t be re-endorsed without a change of course and move on
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
isn’t Socialist Alternative an organization which opposes police abolition? perhaps Sawant should be purged right alongside Bowman and this Warren character
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:where do you get that idea? it’s not something I’ve ever heard. quote:Socialist Alternative has not taken up the approach taken by many on the left of adding immediate police abolition to our general political program. This is because, from the standpoint of Marxists, a political program should be a guide to action for the working class. We want to draw the widest possible section of society into the struggle against racial oppression and capitalism, and that means crafting a political program that people are willing to fight for. Broadly speaking, the demand to abolish the police has very limited support, including among the Black working class. Even at the height of the rebellion last summer, where popular support for the movement skyrocketed, the demand for police abolition only had 15% support. While the demands for sweeping police reform have much broader support, abolition leaves many wondering who would provide “public safety” in the absence of any police force.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
as a member of dsa but not salt, my opinion of the merits and demerits of salt's position on abolition is secondary to my point, relevant to DSA, that the desire to purge people, or factions, is frequently understandable but undesirable from the standpoint of a democratically organized, voluntary, mass political organization. it's a desire that leads things in a destructive and uncontrollable direction.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2021 04:23
|
|