I’m a DSA member, though I’m not that involved (I go to any labor actions in the area, and the occasional meeting). All these panelists seem righteous as hell, and this is intended only as comradely, constructive criticism: I can’t help but wonder if maybe they’re a little too inside to really properly diagnose the DSA’s falling support (and other problems they talk about).
I think the DSA’s fundamental problem is that it misunderstands how to wield the little power it has. Te debate about endorsing candidates and such was healthy and good, but outside that, this feels a bit forest for the trees.
The DSA has gained some visibility. That gives it the power to broadcast a message into the world, but their limited reach means it has to be simple, and, in my opinion, it should focus on material conditions. Right now, if you go to their website, you don’t even get a coherent definition of what democratic socialism is. Here’s their “What is Democratic Socialism?” page, in its entirety:
Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.
We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism. Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history.
We want a democracy that creates space for us all to flourish not just survive and answers the fundamental questions of our lives with the input of all. We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation. We want the multiracial working class united in solidarity instead of divided by fear. We want to win “radical” reforms like single-payer Medicare for All, defunding the police/refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a transition to a freer, more just life.
We want a democracy powered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us we are powerless, but together we can take back control.
Join DSA to further the cause of democratic socialism in your town and across the nation.
Its focus is on “democracy.,” and having “real voice” – I think that’s too abstract. Only at the end do they get to material proposals, and even then, they themselves acknowledge it’s not actually that radical.
Pair that with other things in the interview:
Yes, I have been pleased with the international work within DSA from both the International Committee and the BDS [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions]/Palestinian Solidarity working group nationally, as well as from my local chapter steering committee.
The international committee has been the leading body in DSA following our platform commitment to de-escalate the US-led cold war on China by exposing legislation that appears to be pro-worker while increasing militarization near the Chinese border, for example. Additionally, our BDS/Palestine Solidarity working group has been advancing DSA’s tangible commitment to the BDS movement by helping create apartheid-free boycott zones.
On Ukraine, the Marxist Unity Group, the caucus I’m part of, and Reform & Revolution [of which Philip Locker is a member] united to draft a proposal that calls on its members elected to public office:
The DSA is on the very fringes of American politics. As much as I deeply support the causes, having entire committees dedicated to issues on the other side of the world creates a lot of exposure for the DSA with very little tactical gain, for either the DSA or our international comrades. Imho, the DSA should aim for simple, clean, unimpeachable, bread-and-butter leftist internationalism when talking about extremely controversial issues that it has absolutely no chance of materially impacting.
When they fail to do so, and their committee on this or that controversial international issue misstep or spirals into drama, as a bunch of small-time political operators are bound to do, as they have done many times and talk about in that jacobin piece, it eats into their ability to get a message across.
The average American has absolutely no fucking clue what socialism is. “Socialism is when government does stuff” is the working definition, and the DSA’s definition actually reinforces that, with its emphasis on medical for all and a green new deal. This is a gigantic hurdle for the DSA. An American socialist party will never make a dent on the world if the average American has no goddamn clue what a beautifully rich and deep political and intellectual tradition we espouse.
Wow, that was a lot to take in.
I’m a DSA member, though I’m not that involved (I go to any labor actions in the area, and the occasional meeting). All these panelists seem righteous as hell, and this is intended only as comradely, constructive criticism: I can’t help but wonder if maybe they’re a little too inside to really properly diagnose the DSA’s falling support (and other problems they talk about).
I think the DSA’s fundamental problem is that it misunderstands how to wield the little power it has. Te debate about endorsing candidates and such was healthy and good, but outside that, this feels a bit forest for the trees.
The DSA has gained some visibility. That gives it the power to broadcast a message into the world, but their limited reach means it has to be simple, and, in my opinion, it should focus on material conditions. Right now, if you go to their website, you don’t even get a coherent definition of what democratic socialism is. Here’s their “What is Democratic Socialism?” page, in its entirety:
Its focus is on “democracy.,” and having “real voice” – I think that’s too abstract. Only at the end do they get to material proposals, and even then, they themselves acknowledge it’s not actually that radical.
Pair that with other things in the interview:
The DSA is on the very fringes of American politics. As much as I deeply support the causes, having entire committees dedicated to issues on the other side of the world creates a lot of exposure for the DSA with very little tactical gain, for either the DSA or our international comrades. Imho, the DSA should aim for simple, clean, unimpeachable, bread-and-butter leftist internationalism when talking about extremely controversial issues that it has absolutely no chance of materially impacting.
When they fail to do so, and their committee on this or that controversial international issue misstep or spirals into drama, as a bunch of small-time political operators are bound to do, as they have done many times and talk about in that jacobin piece, it eats into their ability to get a message across.
The average American has absolutely no fucking clue what socialism is. “Socialism is when government does stuff” is the working definition, and the DSA’s definition actually reinforces that, with its emphasis on medical for all and a green new deal. This is a gigantic hurdle for the DSA. An American socialist party will never make a dent on the world if the average American has no goddamn clue what a beautifully rich and deep political and intellectual tradition we espouse.
deleted by creator