Communists belong in DSA
Communists belong in DSA
Too often, DSA is dismissed as a purely social democratic organization, and outsiders discount the communist organizing within it. As a Marxist-Leninist DSA caucus, we reject this narrative. DSA is our political home! We in Red Star are communists who believe that DSA is the most effective place to ...
You're viewing part of a thread.
I am more concerned about long term development- not having democracy isn't conducive to scientific socialism, and you aren't demcent without the dem.
Idk what exactly your line of thinking on this is. It seems like you are creating arbitrary purity tests that the whole 'Join the DSA' schtick fails to pass muster.
If you are concerned with long term development, then maybe your time would be better spent working within an already existing communist organization that consistently has good opinions to open up to more demcent practices, than an anti-communist organization (which also doesn't practice demcent organization or scientific socialism) to not only adopt those practices, but ALSO adopt consistently anti-imperialist politics.
Then join another group that better represents your vision of demcent policy and scientific socialism, or fuck, make your own party. My point is that the DSA is not worth a comrades who are not already established members within its time.
I really don't see how "hey, your org very clearly isn't democratic" is a purity test. PSL straight up isn't democratic in internal structure, internal democratic structure is actually important for a party to function in a healthy way.
Then join another group that better represents your vision of demcent policy and scientific socialism, or fuck, make your own party. My point is that the DSA is not worth a comrades who are not already established members within its time.
"join a sect or form another sect" is a deeply unserious suggestion. Like the whole argument here is "there are better orgs out there" and there really isn't if you actually want to do work with a critical mass.
Most of the actually existing demcent parties weren't 'very democratic' by liberal standards. There was usually political education that was required for even basic entry (outside of provisional) unless you were engaged in direct militancy and then on top of that you were still usually beholden to the party bureaucratic structuring, that would affect how votes were cast. Organizations aren't perfect, they're people.
Context matters, when you are attempting maintain an anti-imperialist leftist org in the imperialist core, you have to maintain political cohesion and the only way to do that is through some level of top-down party control. Otherwise ultras (whom may or may not be feds) will come in, and they will ruin your shit. The U.S. feds in particular got really good at disrupting demcent parties in the 70's and 80's. Perhaps they have gotten relaxed in their tactics now that the USSR isn't priority number one, but given the state of Western leftist organizations, it doesn't take much to completely knock it off base with abit of propaganda about the 'anti-imperialist' leadership and you're back to square one. Most of the principled leftist orgs I know are in siege mode and focused entirely on education and getting people into places where they can be educated. Good or bad, that's where it's at atm. Honestly, I'm surprised the CC isn't in full control of the party management in the PSL.
It's not about 'hanging with the cool kids because soc-dems are sooooo annoying'. This isn't high school. It's about getting people who are interested into revolutionary education that acknowledges and understands the role of revolutionary defeatism, and the current and past revolutionary proletarian history of the U.S. And socdems, and even most baby leftists I know are not ideologically willing (and likely will never be willing) to sacrifice imperialism (particularly moral) if it comes at the cost of material comfort, which it always does, because that is not why people join (or in particular stay) the DSA.
Look, you clearly want to engage with 'the mass' through the DSA and push it left, so go for it (edit: keep at it). Personally, I've seen how this works time and again, writ small. I don't have much hope for it writ large. Maybe times have changed and the context is different. If it works, I'll gladly shut my mouth and join the DSA (again).
You can say I am making unserious suggestions, but given that some people here riffed that your suggestion is an April Fool's joke, all suggestions are unserious until they suddenly aren't.
Most of the actually existing demcent parties weren't 'very democratic' by liberal standards. There was usually political education that was required for even basic entry (outside of provisional) unless you were engaged in direct militancy and then on top of that you were still usually beholden to the party bureaucratic structuring, that would affect how votes were cast. Organizations aren't perfect, they're people.
I def support political education as a requirement for vanguard/center purposes, but that isn't what this is about.
Context matters, when you are attempting maintain an anti-imperialist leftist org in the imperialist core, you have to maintain political cohesion and the only way to do that is through some level of top-down party control. Otherwise ultras (whom may or may not be feds) will come in, and they will ruin your shit (CPUSA specifically comes to mind).
Isn't CPUSA another example of an org that claims to be demcent but is just cent? Isn't this not a good example to use? Feds got up high in the internal structure and used their cent against them.
Most of the principled leftist orgs I know are in siege mode and focused entirely on education and getting people into places where they can be educated. Good or bad, that's where it's at atm. Honestly, I'm surprised the CC isn't in full control of the party management in the PSL.
PSL just straight up isn't in the illegal period. And even during the illegal period, the bolsheviks didn't enter "siege mode" If you're in siege mode now, what is PSL going to do when shit continues to get worse? Does PSL foresee a period where there is less political repression in the US than there is now?
It's not about 'hanging with the cool kids because soc-dems are sooooo annoying'. This isn't high school. It's about getting people who are interested into revolutionary education that acknowledges and understands the role of revolutionary defeatism, and the current and past revolutionary proletarian history of the U.S. And most socdems, and even baby leftists I know are not ideologically willing (and likely will never be willing) to sacrifice imperialism (particularly moral) if it comes at the cost of material comfort, which it always does, because that is not why people join the DSA.
-
You're going to eventually have to talk about imperialism with not-particularly politically developed social democrats.
-
"It's about getting people who are interested in..." to do what?
, I've seen how this works time and again, writ small. I don't have much hope for it writ large.
Literally be a historical materialist about it. The july 26 movement and the bolsheviks both emerged from and participated in less disciplined orgs, they didn't exile themselves. Can you name a successful vanguard of a movement that isolated themselves like US sects do?
I'm not 'exiling' myself. I just will not pay dues to the DSA ever again until I see a real shift in the relationship between the regional and national parties.
CPUSA, to my knowledge, started demcent, then became cent over time as the leadership tightened under 'fed' (or democrat comprador, at least) control, to the point now that it is now completely centralized. The history is alittle wonky there, at there is a lot of documentation on that is old head and zine knowledge lost to time at this point imo. I am unsure of the trajectory of the PSL in that regard (which is something to look into), I just assumed by their stances and prominence they would be nearly completely centralized (which hey, egg on my face). In my personal experience, I have just had easier times discussing the state of things with their members, so imo clearly they are doing something right imo from an education or recruitment perspective. They seem clearly focused on getting ideologically trained members willing to participate in immediate and responsive direct action (one of the reasons I didn't join, cause I wasn't sticking around in tbe area). To what end, I couldn't say, perhaps their protest logistical training is poor.
I already have to talk to social democrats and baby leftists all the time. It wouldn't help me for them to have organizational cover.
For context, where I am living now, there is no left-wing movement to speak of at all. Most of the students I was around didn't even know what 'Palestine' was, let alone that there were protests going on at other campuses. The ones who did know either had friends on other campuses getting arrested, or because their conservative parents had asked them about it. But I do what I can, go to Marx reading group, discuss Marxism in public when the topic arises and history broadly when I can, but between working two jobs in the summer and a job and school it is tough to remain politically active in an area where it is not really self-sustaining.
If you are actually in the thick of it, you are more active than I am atm, and can make better judgements as to where your time is best spent. I was not impressed by the DSA to say the least, but hey, time moves ever forward.
-