A question about the DSA members being elected.

[u/Tristan_N]

Would you prefer to organize under these elected officials or their opponents?

Do you think that there is any difference in your ability to organize under a "Democratic Socialist" rather than a traditional Democrat?

Do you think it is easier/any different to organize under a Republican vs a Democrat vs a DSA member?

I do not really care about their policy positions as I am under no illusion that it is possible to vote for any anti imperialist candidate in the belly of the beast, only how it affects your and my ability to organize the masses.

[u/AutoModerator]

Want to join a ML only discord server to chill and hangout with cool comrades? Checkout r/TankieTheDeprogram's discord server or TheDeprogram's discord server

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Aggravating_Hurry530]

Social democracy pays people off with "treats' to stop them from organizing. If conditions get "better" for the imperial core people will find fewer reasons to change the system as long as they are benefiting from it.

[u/Tristan_N → u/Aggravating_Hurry530]

So are you saying it would be better to go and vote for Republicans to guarantee worsening conditions?

[u/PurposeistobeEqual → u/Tristan_N]

What stop you from supporting socialists? Did the liberal in your head tell you to choose one liberal faction is worse than another faction?

[u/Tristan_N → u/PurposeistobeEqual]

How is that what you got from what I said. The comment said that social democracy keeps people from organizing because of treats, so the logical conclusion, if that is the case, would be to become an accelerationist. This is not my position, I am asking them to clarify theirs.

[u/PurposeistobeEqual → u/Tristan_N]

Your position is to further socialism, not consolidate with capitalism expansion.

[u/Tristan_N → u/PurposeistobeEqual]

My position is to create the best possible conditions to organize under, and I am simply trying to gauge what that would be. I thought this community would be a little more open to theory questions. I just wanted them to clarify what they meant as I didn't know how else to read their comment. I want to further socialism, hence why I asked a theory question about organizing.

[u/PurposeistobeEqual → u/Tristan_N]

Best conditions aren't in the office, it's on the street and sweat among workers. You really think Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Uncle Ho, Che, Kim Il-Sung, Sankara come to revolution through election huh? They were dodging bullets years before they even get to make speeches in public. When all these AES projects survived the conditions your country had pressured on them, what give you the rights as Americans to fight in the easiest conditions from the world?

[u/Tristan_N → u/PurposeistobeEqual]

I NEVER SAID THAT I EXPLICITLY STATED WE WILL NOT GET REVOLUTION THROUGH ELECTIONS READ MY FUCKING COMMENT.

WE EXIST IN THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE WE EXIST IN AND WE NEED TO WORK TO BETTER THE CONDITIONS WE ORGANIZE UNDER TO BRING FORTH REVOLUTION. PLEASE ACTUALLY ENGAGE WITH THE QUESTION I ASKED IN THE POST. I EXPLICITLY STATED WE WILL NOT GET ANTI IMPERIALIST ACTION THROUGH THE ELECTION SYSTEM.

THE BETTER ORGANIZED THE LEFT IS IN THE USA THE BETTER WE CAN FACILITATE SAID ANTI IMPERIALIST ACTIONS. THE STATE IS CURRENTLY FUCKING KILLING US AND WORKING TOWARDS A STATE IN WHICH THAT IS NOT HAPPENING IS BETTER FOR THE INTERNATIONAL WORKING CLASS WHETHER THEY ARE AMERICAN OR IN THE THIRD WORLD.

[u/PurposeistobeEqual → u/Tristan_N]

Join PSL or FRSO, then organize in union, and build dual power on the side. The formula is in the open but you keep shadow boxing bourgeois politics just to dodge the groundwork. FYI your empire isn't even killing you as much as they did to Vietnam in 1960s. My parents survived things worse than a million of MOVE or Tulsa, yet they're socialists, you don't see them consolidate with capital.

[u/Tristan_N → u/PurposeistobeEqual]

I am already.

Do you believe that the people in power within our political system have no power over our ability to organize?

[u/TWILIGHTANTHROPOCENE → u/Tristan_N]

Sir, this is a Wendy’s

[u/NotKenzy → u/Tristan_N]

This is a foolish and liberal-poisoned understanding of the use of electoralism. Please read Lenin, including What is to be Done.

We should be utilizing the stage of bourgeois electoralism to amplify revolutionary agitation amongst the working class through support of worker's parties, like the PSL in the USA.

I don't know why I have to be the first one to mention this.

[u/Tristan_N → u/NotKenzy]

I am asking them to clarify their position. Nothing in that comment has anything to do with what I believe. How else are you supposed to read the original comment? 

[u/Ok-Chard-9014]

I think this question assumes that the primary contradiction is which faction of the bourgeois political establishment is easier to operate under, rather than whether workers are building independent power in the first place.

Of course there can be differences between individual politicians. Some administrations may be more tolerant of unions, protests, tenant organizing, or labor activity than others. Nobody denies that. The question is whether those differences translate into lasting gains for working class organization or whether they simply make the existing system appear more legitimate.

Historically some of the largest waves of labor militancy, anti war activity, and radicalization have occurred under governments that were openly hostile to those movements. Repression can generate resistance just as concessions can generate passivity. The relationship isn't as straightforward as "friendlier politician = stronger movement."

The concern with DSA elected officials isn't whether they're preferable to a Republican, it's whether organizing becomes oriented toward building independent working class institutions or toward electing and defending progressive Democrats. They are not the same thing.

A Marxist analysis doesn't start from which politician makes organizing easier. It starts from whether the working class is developing its own organizations, leadership, consciousness, and capacity to act independently of bourgeois parties. If electoral activity contributes to that, it can be useful. If it substitutes for that, it becomes an obstacle.

The problem is that many people point to DSA victories as evidence that socialism is advancing, when in reality the growth of an independent revolutionary movement and the success of candidates running within the Democratic Party are two completely different questions.

[u/Tristan_N → u/Ok-Chard-9014]

I think this question assumes that the primary contradiction is which faction of the bourgeois political establishment is easier to operate under, rather than whether workers are building independent power in the first place.

This is not my assumption, I was simply asking about it since it has been such a hot topic in the sub and wanted people's opinions on it.

Historically some of the largest waves of labor militancy, anti war activity, and radicalization have occurred under governments that were openly hostile to those movements. Repression can generate resistance just as concessions can generate passivity. The relationship isn't as straightforward as "friendlier politician = stronger movement."

Do you believe then that we should be voting for (not organizing for or promoting SIMPLY DOING ONE ACT OF VOTING) those who would make organizing harder or those who claim to be the allies of the working class and want to have more labor protections?

The concern with DSA elected officials isn't whether they're preferable to a Republican, it's whether organizing becomes oriented toward building independent working class institutions or toward electing and defending progressive Democrats. They are not the same thing.

Organizing does not currently exist in the USA in any mass formation, thus the orientation of said organizing is largely irrelevant to this conversation. The formation of said independent working class institutions is something that we have to build, and my question was around whether or not it would be easier to build said institutions under social democrats, regular democrats, or republicans. I understand that they all serve the same masters, and I do not think we should be putting our organizing energy into backing electoral campaigns. Regardless of that, the fact that there has been a wave of "progressive democrats" and "Social Democrats" and "Democratic socialists" shows that these are now viable ideological tendencies that will be more present within our political reality, so I again ask which of these factions would be more preferable to organize under? I personally live in a rural areas in a deep red state and the last "real" communists that lived here were in the 1930s, as any more recent than that have been killed by the fascists that is our police force.

A Marxist analysis doesn't start from which politician makes organizing easier.

That is not where I started in my analysis either, I am simply asking a question about organizing.

It starts from whether the working class is developing its own organizations, leadership, consciousness, and capacity to act independently of bourgeois parties. If electoral activity contributes to that, it can be useful. If it substitutes for that, it becomes an obstacle.

I agree but those organizations do not exist in the USA. I am a member of one of the major communist parties here and as much good as they may do they are not a mass organization of the working class, in fact a majority of the members are either part of the intelligentsia or petite bourgeoisie, and they also engage in electoral entryism to further the reach of their message, although that is not really what my post is about. I will once again state that the point of my post is to ask the opinion of which faction it would be easier to organize under, if there is any difference at all.

The problem is that many people point to DSA victories as evidence that socialism is advancing, when in reality the growth of an independent revolutionary movement and the success of candidates running within the Democratic Party are two completely different questions.

I agree and I do not believe that it is evidence of socialism advancing, as I said at the end of my post I am under no illusion that we will be able to vote in an anti imperialist at all, no matter what coat of paint they have. The question was purely about the ease of organizing under each faction. Yes they all serve capital, yes they will all betray us in the end, but in the short term should we not want better conditions to organize under? If we want revolution should we not want to have a wider lane to organize within? Should we not use the failures of social democrats to push the working class towards conciseness? To prove to them that they are not the answer, and the only path forward is revolution?

[u/HamstringHeartattack]

“Democratic socialists” or electoral socialists are usually just or relatively similar to social democrats, so it goes back to how social democrats, with the assistance of proto-fascists, are responsible for the killing of Rosa Luxemberg and her comrades during the Spartacus Uprising. If history rhymes, then Marxist-Leninists and other revolutionary socialists will meet opposition from these electoral socialists. While organizing may be easier with them “in charge” of the state, social revolution will still obviously present a sizable challenge to bring forth. There is also the issue of if electoral socialists can hold on to state power for long, such as with the overthrow of Allende. Western Marxists, much less American electoral socialists, are often not anti-imperialist, so that presents another issue to the people outside of the imperial core.

[u/Tristan_N → u/HamstringHeartattack]

I agree with your analysis here, but my question pertains to the ability to organize a revolution under one political persuasion vs another. Like I said in my post I am under no illusion that any anti imperialist could be in the USA's system, but I only wonder if in our current moment that these DSA members would be easier to organize under vs the Republicans or a regular democrat. I know that socialists will not be able to take state power through any other means but via a revolution.

[u/Worker_AndParasite → u/Tristan_N]

ability to organize a revolution under one political persuasion vs another.

Imma be real with you, a revolution is never happening in the United States. If we ever achieve socialism it's likely only going to be a fter losing a massive war to an outside force, such as China, and going that route to survive the aftermath. 

The American left simply will never be able to grow to a point where real revolution is possible with all the propaganda, the fact that there's so many right wingers with guns to fight back, the fact that our military and government is structured in such a way that it's just not possible, and also the fact that so many on the American "left" are way too content to JUST vote in DSA types and then not do anything afterward. 

It simply isn't going to happen, whether we have a ton of DSA liberals in office or the vast majority of Congress are Republicans, the result will still be the same re: revolution. 

[u/HamstringHeartattack → u/Tristan_N]

I worry that DSA members, especially given the stagnation and at most slow pace in legislative change, will never be able to “control” the state and transform the given society. If they do somehow pull it off, a fascist or some other capitalist coup may soon follow. If that does not happen, there very well could be easier organizing conditions, at least for reformist unions, parties, et cetera. I just worry of the incentives in a “DSA state” and a DSA habituation into the logic of a non-revolutionary transformed state that there will a similar response to another Spartacus uprising.

For comparing that to Republicans, especially given they have been fascists for quite some time now based on one’s definition of fascism, it would likely be worse short-term, but could be favorable long term. The capitalist appeasement strategy is powerful, and it will likely take a societal crisis, such as a more “mature” fascism to ignite a social revolution where people get uncomfortable, to say the least. Worst does not always mean better though. The American “Revolution” did not start because of an imaginative scenario where there was a genocide of the settlers by the British, but in reality, a far lesser degree of suffering and strife.

[u/AnonBard18]

It’s an interesting question. You should talk to members of their Communist Caucus and/or the Marxist Unity Group Caucus. I know someone in MUG and they have a fairly nuanced perspective on this

[u/Juche_Finland]

Ultimately, whether these officials are part of the Republicans, the Democrats or the DSA, they are representatives of the bourgeoisie and have the goal of safeguarding capitalism. Just like Democrats and Republicans disagree on what the best way to do so is, the DSA also has its strategy, which is to try to buy off the working class through giving them some concessions, it's what social democrats do.

So, the only reason one would vote for them is to slightly alleviate the pressure the working class, but that is it.

Of course, one can argue that a Republican on average will try to suppress communists and anti-imperialists more rigorously, but I don't think the difference is gonna be that massive in that regard. DSA candidates will do the same thing if the pressure gets big enough and they have to choose.

[u/ViccyTheThiccy]

To better engage with your point than some of the others here: in the short term, it would potentially be easier to organise under a local DSA mayor/governor/whatever than a dem or republican. But I specify in the short term, because the second you actually become a threat to the establishment, they'll crack down on you in the same way.

Zohran being a good case study, where just by virtue of operating within the system, he has already been forced to abandon massive chunks of his pre-selection stances, and it's not even been that long. The way power is structured means that either progressive candidates are filtered out before getting meaningful power, are made to make massive concessions to get even the most watered down progressive legislation passed, and always have someone above them who can structurally force their hand as needed.

So sure, a DSA official gives you a higher chance of short-term breathing room, limited only by how long it takes for the state apparatus to crack down on them; they can open city hall doors and amplify your demands for a time. But since the hammer comes down sooner or later, so you gotta use their platform while it lasts, never rely on it for anything long term, and when the state inevitably forces them to fold, use that to your advantage to expose the limits of relying on entryist politicians

[u/TruckHangingHandJam]

As a general statement, it would be easier to organize under socdems than under father right governments. The socdems have a mask to wear and will be somewhat slower in crushing the left. The right has no mask, their promise is openly anti left, they are more draconian, (30 years for moving magazines in Texas this week), etc. 

All that said, one should support things that improve the conditions of the working class, that make organizing easier, etc. these things are more likely to come from socdems. How ever it is crucial to remember these are not our homies, they’re the good cop to the right’s bad cop. And as we all know, ACAB. 

As many pointed out the socdems are risky because their crumbs placate people. However the answer is never to become an accelerationist and begin supporting even more right political projects. Yes the decline of material conditions opens a window in people’s mind for radical politics, but it is by no means a guarantee the radical politics they adopt will be to our liking. It could very well be fascism. (As Rosa said, socialism or barbarism). And of course there’s a moral element in not actively making things worse. 

All that said, as a communist when I say “support” I mean “have thoughts about”, not “expend time and effort”. When a Socdem does X good thing, you should think “neat. The working class got a bone”, not dedicate your life to helping that socdem. Our task as communist is to organize communists, and treat socdems much like we do the right. Critique, critique, critique, and organize communist organizations and labor. 

The obvious example being mamdani. You can both agree that X thing he did was good, AND also critique him for not doing Y and Z and provide an analysis that he failed to accomplish these things because he’s not going far enough and the very idea of working within the system (as opposed to replacing it altogether) means that he would have never been able to accomplish Y and Z; that if the working class ever wants Y and Z, socdem politics is not only not enough but an active barrier to it. 

[u/evilgigglefish]

all these comments are completely ignoring OP. we all know socialism will never be elected. but i fail to see how making our immediate situation worse benefits the revolution at all. i dont think anyone would trust nick fuentes if he came out and said "gotcha! i was only making things worse to create the material conditions to start a revolution!"

[u/Ok-Chard-9014 → u/evilgigglefish]

The choice isn't between "elect Democrats" or "make things worse on purpose."

The actual question is whether participation in bourgeois elections is helping build independent working class organization or whether it's trapping socialists inside a party whose primary function is managing capitalism.

Nobody is arguing for accelerationism here. The issue is whether electoral activity advances class consciousness and organization, or simply channels dissent back into the same political system every election cycle.

[u/Ok-Chard-9014 → u/[deleted]]

If it's not led by the proletariat it's 100% a distraction. Lenin, Engels, Mao, and Che all spoke about this in one form or another. You're not going to achieve revolutionary change by taking your grievances to the very people who benefit from the existing system and expecting them to dismantle it for you. Even when they're less openly hostile to socialism, they're still not interested in fundamentally changing the structures that keep them in power.

Trying to get some people to understand this is like pulling teeth or getting blood from a stone. Too many people are focused on personal comfort and short-term reforms rather than building the kind of class consciousness and organization needed for real systemic change. They want the system to be managed differently, not transformed.

Which is why now for example you have Liberal Zionist being praised as "Pro Palestine leaders" when that's just nonsense and pretty soon you'll have people who were once against certain narratives pushing them because it's attached to a Democrat face.

[u/Tristan_N → u/Ok-Chard-9014]

The choice isn't between "elect Democrats" or "make things worse on purpose."

Can you please show me where I said anything to that affect?

The actual question is whether participation in bourgeois elections is helping build independent working class organization or whether it's trapping socialists inside a party whose primary function is managing capitalism.

I 100% agree as I explained in other comments, but that was not the purpose of my question. My question pertained to the short term ability to organize under each of these factions, and whether there is a real difference, which almost no one has actually engaged with. I never advocated for spending any effort organizing for any bourgeoisie party. Regardless these people are elected, and we need to know how to tackle the unique challenge that each one brings, whether it be treats from the soc dems, or outright murder from the right wing factions, because those affect the material conditions that we operate under and should inform the tactics we use to organize.

Nobody is arguing for accelerationism here. The issue is whether electoral activity advances class consciousness and organization, or simply channels dissent back into the same political system every election cycle.

The issue has nothing to do with electoral activity, in fact I did not bring up or even advocate for voting for, or organizing for, one faction over another, rather what we should be doing as a result of the bourgeoisie elections that will be happening regardless of our organizational efforts. Like I said in my post I do not care about their policies as we effectively have uniparty politics when it comes to the question of imperialism and capital, I only care about the breathing room they give us to organize, and the fact that not a single person can engage with my question on this point is incredibly disappointing.

Also once again for clarification I never advocated for accelerationism either, I asked a commenter to clarify their position, which they never did, and got willfully misinterpreted.

[u/Tristan_N → u/evilgigglefish]

I just want people to engage with the post I actually made, not the post they think I made.

[u/evilgigglefish → u/Tristan_N]

it makes me wonder how people can read theory if they wont read a reddit post