Re: How DSA fixes a political problem

I was a member of the IWW for a couple of years. That was while I was
looking for some way to connect with some young people who wanted to
organize workers. In any political organization political differences
exist. That is healthy and natural, so long as they can be discussed in a
comradely fashion. In the IWW it was absolutely taboo to discuss them at
all. It's not so different in DSA. Chapter meetings in East Bay DSA are
just like pep squad rallies. Even the discussion on whether or not to run a
DSA candidate for president, which I reported on a short while ago, really
just ended up discussing the question as if it were a question of doctrine.
The main issue was that any candidate must meet certain minimum
requirements (No support for Israel and abolish ICE). What was the actual
situation we face either now or are likely to face in two years was not
considered, even when I raised it. I get the newsletter of one of the
caucuses - North Star. It is 100% organizational news. Not a single
commentary on events external to DSA. I don't see any evidence that any
other caucuses are different.

EBDSA is not the exception. Anybody who doubts that, should take a look at
the DSA monthly newsletter
<https://www.dsausa.org/news/aug2026_npc_newsletter/?akid=66308.18282.p3_Hqs&rd=1&t=8#dem-left>
sent
out by the co-chairs Romer and Siddique. It is the very model of an
apolitical approach. Some can claim that these two are the exception, but
then how did the both of them get elected to co-chair?

I think there are major political differences within DSA. Some of these
revolve around people coming from  different traditions. These include
Trotskyist, Maoist, social democratic and what amounts to anarchist
traditions. However, there is one thing upon which they all agree: That
there shall be no struggle against the real leadership of the U.S. working
class, which is the union leadership. No struggle which seeks to involve
the rank and file workers. At a time in which the cowardly position of the
union leadership is more disastrous every day, that commitment must become
stronger every day.

Political debate is necessary not only for the organization in general;
it's necessary for the individuals in the organization to sharpen
themselves up. It forces people to think things through more clearly and to
figure out what's the best way to express their views. For the
organization, it leads to elevating a national leadership that best
expresses those views. But as far as I can see, there is hardly any such
debate in DSA. Instead, the majority of DSA members tend to live in the
left echo chamber. That's what got exposed in that Romer interview. Sure,
some people are a little more engaged in the real world. Maybe they'll find
somebody like that as a "press officer". But that doesn't fix the
underlying problem.

John Reimann


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#43118): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43118
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120853362/6024700
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/10173629/6024700/1441833971/xyzzy [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-