I have yet to see a DSA candidate run and win that is an actual socialist with good foreign policy. I might just not be aware of them. Absolutely, the org itself has some good people in it.
So how do we prevent this from happening in the future? What kinds of political education needs to be developed? How do we reach these candidates and teach them the good takes before they share the bad ones publicly? I want solutions and less bickering.
This is not possible with the current mechanisms of the DSA, there’s no leverage or enforcement mechanism. There’s no consistent political education. I know that some members and groups within the DSA are working on possible solutions to this, which you should be telling me rather than the other way around because it’s your org.
As it currently stands, the DSA has flaws that cause this kind of thing to happen, and it will continue to happen until they’re fixed (enforcement mechanism and leverage over members who run for office, consistent political education for all members).
It’s time for people on here to think of solutions instead of endlessly complaining. I’m sick of all the negativity on here!
Here’s an example: “OK, I’ll start a AES101 thread on here for us to build a short guide. We’ll keep it simple for people who know nothing about these countries to learn something and then link to deeper reading. Link to thread: [link]. And I’ll tag _, _, and especially _ because they are an expert on Mao.”
The problem isn’t that good resources are not available for education. They are. The problem is the DSA is not a party, it has no party line, it has no education standards for members, and it has no enforcement mechanism to prevent members from deviating from the agreed policies of the org.
I’m not trying to get into a huge argument with you here, but I’m not required to solve every problem in the DSA personally in order to be able to give a mild critique of it as an organization. There are caucuses in the DSA that are working on these issues, as far as I know. They do good work, you should see if any operate in your area. I won’t be able to help you with specifics, as we’ve already established I’m not a member.
I don’t believe in electoral change, in any case, so in my view the DSA serves only as a method of harm reduction and education/radicalization. If you want an effective strategy for electoral socialism in the US, I’m afraid I can’t help you because I don’t believe it’s a viable strategy. I’m not interested in debating that with you, it’s been argued to death already on this platform.
And then I can go “Great! I’ll talk to the poli Ed folks on my end and see if we can make this part of the upcoming training. I’ll turn this into some slides and plan out a 15 min primer. If it goes well I can share it on the National DSA forums and get this spread to other chapters.”
You or any other actually socialist DSA members planning on running for office then? I have no problem with most DSA members or even with the DSA. I have a problem when the “socialists” in the party lie about it though
So where do you draw the line? When does someone calling themselves a socialist but acting like a lib democrat reach the point where you have to admit their actions speak louder than their words? There are socialists who are zionists, transphobic, homophobic, and/or effectively pro imperialism by bandwagoning against the targets of imperialism along with the imperialists. At what point do we have to admit these people are not socialists and by identifying themselves as much they are actually leading people away from socialism? For some, socialism means we have higher taxes and welfare, they call themselves socialists but that isn’t what socialism is. So because they call themselves that, is it true?
anticapitalism is generous heuristic, it could be as loose as who you think should own the means of production. We can say people are bad socialists if they’re bigots or imperialists.
I don’t believe we can afford to be strict right now. Yeah, I want Zohran to have better policy on AES nations and I want him to spit in NYPD’s faces as much as the rest of you. But I am willing to bite my tongue because rent control is more important than perfection, better public transit is more important, Municipal grocers is more important, etc.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when every other politician is Hitler-lite…
Does this not sound like actual democrat rhetoric? “Yes I want Biden to support universal healthcare as much as you do, but control of the NLRB is important, stopping fascism is important, room to organize is important. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when every other politician is Hitler-lite”
Does Zohran have a history of being a segregation lover and voting for Conservative policy? Does he have decades of imperialism and pro-capitalist votes you can point at? These are not the same people.
Seriously, the guy has a record as a NY state rep? Are there any real red flags or are we just sad that he isn’t perfect on a set of issues that he isn’t going to have control over?
I’m not saying he isn’t the better choice for mayor, but that doesn’t make him a socialist or someone who truly wants to enact socialism, even if he thinks of himself that way
So? I want our lives to get better. I’m not as dogmatic as others on here when it comes to who is doing the improvement.
I know I’m not as left as this site and that’s fine. When “perfect” commies start winning seats and making real change I’ll switch but until then I will work with who I got.
Wanting lives to get better and so reaffirming capitalism by supporting Democrat libs has gained us nothing but sure, maybe Mamdani will be the first to make our lives better. Maybe somehow Mamdani becoming mayor leads to a total shift in our economic and political realities. Maybe Marx was fundamentally wrong about how change happens and the liberal idea of is the answer to truly making our lives get better. This is a leftist position.
Simultaneously yes and no. It is subjective, because the meanings of “socialism” have been varied and vague from the very beginning - even the Communist Manifesto has to deal with this. A political dictionary written back in 1924 had over 40 definitions of the word.
In a community like Hexbear, there’s a smaller range of what “socialism” can mean, but even then it can be a school of thought (ideas), a social movement (praxis), a mode of production, etc. It still needs context or qualification to have a specific meaning.
At what point do we have to admit these [bigoted] people are not socialists and by identifying themselves as much they are actually leading people away from socialism?
They can still be a socialist if they’re repulsive, counterproductive and ignorant. Socialism isn’t an organization. It’s not a political party. It’s not “the good guys”.
Purity games are dangerous to analysis. There is No True Socialist. Marx said some racist trash[1], but it would be ridiculous to say they weren’t a socialist despite that. It also would be ridiculous to pretend that their bigotry was alright and excusable. Again, socialism isn’t a pure, utopian group of only people we like. There are bad socialists in the world.
If you want to claim a bigot isn’t a socialist because you think it will be effective propaganda, then that’s something you can do and it might even be a useful productive thing to do, therefore it’s the right thing to do, but it’s just as much rhetoric as a person falsely claiming “Mamdami is a socialist” because they thought associating a popular populist progressive Democrat with socialism will make the identity of socialism more well-known and accepted in the mainstream. Consider Bernie Sanders clearly espousing reformist capitalism (and imperialism, and Zionism, and … ). They were falsely identified as socialist and it led many thousands of people people towards actual socialist ideas beyond Bernie, like an Overton window. For analytical purposes, I’m very sure Sanders is not a socialist whatsoever, whether they realize it or not. But for rhetorical purposes, in the context of a post-Red Scare USA that largely won’t even consider listening to actual socialist points, taking credit for popular reform clearly has an effect. (To be clear, I’m not endorsing calling Mamdami nor Sanders “socialist”. I’m just describing an opposite example of false association as a rhetorical technique, one I’ve seen other people endorse)
I think it’s a shade of liberal great man theory to think that a figure like sanders has had a positive effect on bringing people towards socialism without acknowledging the many more people who he has kept away from socialism by setting the idea of socialism as liberalism.
Anyone who has a Bernie phase but ultimately moved on to revolutionary theory would have gotten there anyway, Bernie or not. I’m more concerned with the many many more people who reached the point of accepting Bernie’s theories of change and found comfort in staying there in perpetuity because they are designed perfectly to do just that. Defanging revolutionary energy and herding it back towards democratic party, capitalism, and imperialism is not bringing people to socialism, it is bringing them away from it, and that is exactly what Mamdani is doing in turn
i want the working class to win by seizing actual power and i think that’s done by building & bolstering its own institutions - like labor unions, tenants unions, and a strong workers party that can direct them. viable left parties are built through organizing and struggle, they don’t just spring up from the earth - and as an active member of a very active communist party, i’m trying to do my part in that struggle (my investment in this goes far beyond just being correct from the sidelines).
so yeah, winning parliamentary seats in the immediate is a nice to have at best. and to add, “Democratic party” is far more than a label, it’s an institution & organ of power built for and maintained by the bourgeoisie, with well developed tools for flattening and absorbing any internal opposition (assuming that the ostensible opposition wasn’t comprised of careerists from the get-go). even the most degraded, reactionary trade union is still comprised of the workers, and would therefore be a better investment of organizing energy.
“Democratic party” is far more than a label, it’s an institution & organ of power built for and maintained by the bourgeoisie, with well developed tools for flattening and absorbing any internal opposition
If you’re actually organizing within the Party apparatus this is true. Outside the party meetings it’s a ballot line. There’s no party structure to force you off that line, no recall ability, and the party can ot legally do anything to people who run under that ballot line in most states and most races (President being a big exception). Simply put, anyone can run as a Democrat. They just have to be registered as one and be willing to win the primary.
I’m tired of seeing good people throw away winnable elections because they care too much about how they look on a ballot.
The voters are stupid and uneducated. You will never have the time or the energy to do the amount of persuasion needed to convince millions of people to take a chance with a third party vote.
As long as there’s 40+% of the electorate that will always vote for you if you have a “D” next to your name you should take that opportunity. Being a third party candidate is a great way to get 1% of the vote. That’s what I don’t want to see from these PSL candidates: a bunch of activists spinning their wheels on campaigns that can’t win.
It’s more than nice to have. It’s an imperative that we take seats away from both fascist parties. Winning elections is self-defense.
One less fascist vote to harm us and our friends & family.
If we get a few leftists in power in one chamber of one legislative body, now we have enough people to block tight votes. That’s leverage that forces the capitalist reps to come to the table and give us consessions.
But even if there’s just a mayor that means a ton of executive power to reign in NYPD, fund all sorts of projects across the city, and actually make people’s lives better. That’s 1000x better than letting a ghoul like Cuomo in.
The labor organizing is good but it’s not working here in the states. Union participation is at its lowest level in, what, 50 years? And that’s not for a lack of leftists trying. People don’t support unions. It’s not working here. Maybe you have better experience than I do but the people I talk to day to day say things like “I love my job” if I even start hinting at helping with unionizing. The Starbucks workers near me didn’t want to unionize because despite what the company did it was still better than working for the other fast food chains. There’s a lot of Stockholm syndrome involved but also a lot of self-imposed “I deserve to be in this spot” mentality that IDK how to break through.
I see the same mentality on here. Ya’ll are so used to losing that you cope by rabidly attacking anyone getting close to power. You nitpick Zohran and yeah he’s not perfect but nobody is! And if you really want the “perfect” candidate the only person that can be is you.
The time for book clubs is over. It’s too late for that. We have armed paramilitary forces marching through cities and abducting people right now. Either we take power through the only legal means left OR we do what Mao did, and I’m not saying any more to get myself on even more lists.
And that’s what’s better about the DSA strategy compared to PSL’s? Because you guys win seats, it’s worth it to equate socialism with imperial welfarism?
Nothing else is working, that’s why. I’d love to support tenant organizing, or unionizing efforts or whatever. The left has tried these things for decades and from what I can see gotten nowhere. We need power to get anything done for the working class.
We need power to get anything done for the working class.
This is why you need to build power, not just rely on the bourgeois state to give it to you. Unless your goal is to be like a euro type social democracy.
You build power through establishing relations and connections with people in your community. I don’t know what world you’re living in where people listen to candidates.
He sounds like a Socialist, just one with bad foreign takes.
Seriously, what will it take for DSA candidates to get good takes on foreign policy? Or just learn to STFU when asked about this stuff?
They won’t, because they aren’t socialist
This kind of rhetoric should be cut down. I’m in DSA. Lots of good Hexbears with good takes are in DSA. This kind of bashing isn’t helpful.
And everybody here is a liberal except for me. Case closed.
I have yet to see a DSA candidate run and win that is an actual socialist with good foreign policy. I might just not be aware of them. Absolutely, the org itself has some good people in it.
So how do we prevent this from happening in the future? What kinds of political education needs to be developed? How do we reach these candidates and teach them the good takes before they share the bad ones publicly? I want solutions and less bickering.
This is not possible with the current mechanisms of the DSA, there’s no leverage or enforcement mechanism. There’s no consistent political education. I know that some members and groups within the DSA are working on possible solutions to this, which you should be telling me rather than the other way around because it’s your org.
As it currently stands, the DSA has flaws that cause this kind of thing to happen, and it will continue to happen until they’re fixed (enforcement mechanism and leverage over members who run for office, consistent political education for all members).
Not a productive answer.
It’s time for people on here to think of solutions instead of endlessly complaining. I’m sick of all the negativity on here!
Here’s an example: “OK, I’ll start a AES101 thread on here for us to build a short guide. We’ll keep it simple for people who know nothing about these countries to learn something and then link to deeper reading. Link to thread: [link]. And I’ll tag _, _, and especially _ because they are an expert on Mao.”
The problem isn’t that good resources are not available for education. They are. The problem is the DSA is not a party, it has no party line, it has no education standards for members, and it has no enforcement mechanism to prevent members from deviating from the agreed policies of the org.
I’m not trying to get into a huge argument with you here, but I’m not required to solve every problem in the DSA personally in order to be able to give a mild critique of it as an organization. There are caucuses in the DSA that are working on these issues, as far as I know. They do good work, you should see if any operate in your area. I won’t be able to help you with specifics, as we’ve already established I’m not a member.
I don’t believe in electoral change, in any case, so in my view the DSA serves only as a method of harm reduction and education/radicalization. If you want an effective strategy for electoral socialism in the US, I’m afraid I can’t help you because I don’t believe it’s a viable strategy. I’m not interested in debating that with you, it’s been argued to death already on this platform.
Fine. Disengage
And then I can go “Great! I’ll talk to the poli Ed folks on my end and see if we can make this part of the upcoming training. I’ll turn this into some slides and plan out a 15 min primer. If it goes well I can share it on the National DSA forums and get this spread to other chapters.”
You or any other actually socialist DSA members planning on running for office then? I have no problem with most DSA members or even with the DSA. I have a problem when the “socialists” in the party lie about it though
NGL I’m tempted to do it to get a bully pulpit to dunk on Zionists in public.
If I do will you support my campaign? Will other Hexbears?
Will you repeat imperialist Zionist talking points? If not, you’re good!
Are you willing to back that up with a donation or make calls for my campaign? I’ll let you dunk on Pissrael as much as you want.
I sincerely will donate, but I reserve the right to call you a lib if it comes to it
So where do you draw the line? When does someone calling themselves a socialist but acting like a lib democrat reach the point where you have to admit their actions speak louder than their words? There are socialists who are zionists, transphobic, homophobic, and/or effectively pro imperialism by bandwagoning against the targets of imperialism along with the imperialists. At what point do we have to admit these people are not socialists and by identifying themselves as much they are actually leading people away from socialism? For some, socialism means we have higher taxes and welfare, they call themselves socialists but that isn’t what socialism is. So because they call themselves that, is it true?
anticapitalism is generous heuristic, it could be as loose as who you think should own the means of production. We can say people are bad socialists if they’re bigots or imperialists.
I don’t believe we can afford to be strict right now. Yeah, I want Zohran to have better policy on AES nations and I want him to spit in NYPD’s faces as much as the rest of you. But I am willing to bite my tongue because rent control is more important than perfection, better public transit is more important, Municipal grocers is more important, etc.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when every other politician is Hitler-lite…
Does this not sound like actual democrat rhetoric? “Yes I want Biden to support universal healthcare as much as you do, but control of the NLRB is important, stopping fascism is important, room to organize is important. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when every other politician is Hitler-lite”
Does Zohran have a history of being a segregation lover and voting for Conservative policy? Does he have decades of imperialism and pro-capitalist votes you can point at? These are not the same people.
Seriously, the guy has a record as a NY state rep? Are there any real red flags or are we just sad that he isn’t perfect on a set of issues that he isn’t going to have control over?
I’m not saying he isn’t the better choice for mayor, but that doesn’t make him a socialist or someone who truly wants to enact socialism, even if he thinks of himself that way
So? I want our lives to get better. I’m not as dogmatic as others on here when it comes to who is doing the improvement.
I know I’m not as left as this site and that’s fine. When “perfect” commies start winning seats and making real change I’ll switch but until then I will work with who I got.
Wanting lives to get better and so reaffirming capitalism by supporting Democrat libs has gained us nothing but sure, maybe Mamdani will be the first to make our lives better. Maybe somehow Mamdani becoming mayor leads to a total shift in our economic and political realities. Maybe Marx was fundamentally wrong about how change happens and the liberal idea of
is the answer to truly making our lives get better. This is a leftist position.
Simultaneously yes and no. It is subjective, because the meanings of “socialism” have been varied and vague from the very beginning - even the Communist Manifesto has to deal with this. A political dictionary written back in 1924 had over 40 definitions of the word.
In a community like Hexbear, there’s a smaller range of what “socialism” can mean, but even then it can be a school of thought (ideas), a social movement (praxis), a mode of production, etc. It still needs context or qualification to have a specific meaning.
They can still be a socialist if they’re repulsive, counterproductive and ignorant. Socialism isn’t an organization. It’s not a political party. It’s not “the good guys”.
Purity games are dangerous to analysis. There is No True Socialist. Marx said some racist trash[1], but it would be ridiculous to say they weren’t a socialist despite that. It also would be ridiculous to pretend that their bigotry was alright and excusable. Again, socialism isn’t a pure, utopian group of only people we like. There are bad socialists in the world.
If you want to claim a bigot isn’t a socialist because you think it will be effective propaganda, then that’s something you can do and it might even be a useful productive thing to do, therefore it’s the right thing to do, but it’s just as much rhetoric as a person falsely claiming “Mamdami is a socialist” because they thought associating a popular populist progressive Democrat with socialism will make the identity of socialism more well-known and accepted in the mainstream. Consider Bernie Sanders clearly espousing reformist capitalism (and imperialism, and Zionism, and … ). They were falsely identified as socialist and it led many thousands of people people towards actual socialist ideas beyond Bernie, like an Overton window. For analytical purposes, I’m very sure Sanders is not a socialist whatsoever, whether they realize it or not. But for rhetorical purposes, in the context of a post-Red Scare USA that largely won’t even consider listening to actual socialist points, taking credit for popular reform clearly has an effect. (To be clear, I’m not endorsing calling Mamdami nor Sanders “socialist”. I’m just describing an opposite example of false association as a rhetorical technique, one I’ve seen other people endorse)
https://web.archive.org/web/0/http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm ↩︎
I think it’s a shade of liberal great man theory to think that a figure like sanders has had a positive effect on bringing people towards socialism without acknowledging the many more people who he has kept away from socialism by setting the idea of socialism as liberalism.
Anyone who has a Bernie phase but ultimately moved on to revolutionary theory would have gotten there anyway, Bernie or not. I’m more concerned with the many many more people who reached the point of accepting Bernie’s theories of change and found comfort in staying there in perpetuity because they are designed perfectly to do just that. Defanging revolutionary energy and herding it back towards democratic party, capitalism, and imperialism is not bringing people to socialism, it is bringing them away from it, and that is exactly what Mamdani is doing in turn
they’d have to not be democrats tbh
Then you will get 5 votes and be considered a third party nobody.
Democrats suck ass, but voters still turnout for the label. There’s no getting around that and an actual left party doesn’t exist.
So do you want to be right or do you want to win?
i want the working class to win by seizing actual power and i think that’s done by building & bolstering its own institutions - like labor unions, tenants unions, and a strong workers party that can direct them. viable left parties are built through organizing and struggle, they don’t just spring up from the earth - and as an active member of a very active communist party, i’m trying to do my part in that struggle (my investment in this goes far beyond just being correct from the sidelines).
so yeah, winning parliamentary seats in the immediate is a nice to have at best. and to add, “Democratic party” is far more than a label, it’s an institution & organ of power built for and maintained by the bourgeoisie, with well developed tools for flattening and absorbing any internal opposition (assuming that the ostensible opposition wasn’t comprised of careerists from the get-go). even the most degraded, reactionary trade union is still comprised of the workers, and would therefore be a better investment of organizing energy.
If you’re actually organizing within the Party apparatus this is true. Outside the party meetings it’s a ballot line. There’s no party structure to force you off that line, no recall ability, and the party can ot legally do anything to people who run under that ballot line in most states and most races (President being a big exception). Simply put, anyone can run as a Democrat. They just have to be registered as one and be willing to win the primary.
I’m tired of seeing good people throw away winnable elections because they care too much about how they look on a ballot.
The voters are stupid and uneducated. You will never have the time or the energy to do the amount of persuasion needed to convince millions of people to take a chance with a third party vote.
As long as there’s 40+% of the electorate that will always vote for you if you have a “D” next to your name you should take that opportunity. Being a third party candidate is a great way to get 1% of the vote. That’s what I don’t want to see from these PSL candidates: a bunch of activists spinning their wheels on campaigns that can’t win.
It’s more than nice to have. It’s an imperative that we take seats away from both fascist parties. Winning elections is self-defense.
One less fascist vote to harm us and our friends & family.
If we get a few leftists in power in one chamber of one legislative body, now we have enough people to block tight votes. That’s leverage that forces the capitalist reps to come to the table and give us consessions.
But even if there’s just a mayor that means a ton of executive power to reign in NYPD, fund all sorts of projects across the city, and actually make people’s lives better. That’s 1000x better than letting a ghoul like Cuomo in.
The labor organizing is good but it’s not working here in the states. Union participation is at its lowest level in, what, 50 years? And that’s not for a lack of leftists trying. People don’t support unions. It’s not working here. Maybe you have better experience than I do but the people I talk to day to day say things like “I love my job” if I even start hinting at helping with unionizing. The Starbucks workers near me didn’t want to unionize because despite what the company did it was still better than working for the other fast food chains. There’s a lot of Stockholm syndrome involved but also a lot of self-imposed “I deserve to be in this spot” mentality that IDK how to break through.
I see the same mentality on here. Ya’ll are so used to losing that you cope by rabidly attacking anyone getting close to power. You nitpick Zohran and yeah he’s not perfect but nobody is! And if you really want the “perfect” candidate the only person that can be is you.
The time for book clubs is over. It’s too late for that. We have armed paramilitary forces marching through cities and abducting people right now. Either we take power through the only legal means left OR we do what Mao did, and I’m not saying any more to get myself on even more lists.
And that’s what’s better about the DSA strategy compared to PSL’s? Because you guys win seats, it’s worth it to equate socialism with imperial welfarism?
Nothing else is working, that’s why. I’d love to support tenant organizing, or unionizing efforts or whatever. The left has tried these things for decades and from what I can see gotten nowhere. We need power to get anything done for the working class.
This is why you need to build power, not just rely on the bourgeois state to give it to you. Unless your goal is to be like a euro type social democracy.
To build power you need people to listen to you. Who do people listen to? Candidates, not activists
You build power through establishing relations and connections with people in your community. I don’t know what world you’re living in where people listen to candidates.