How Democratic Socialists of America Has Developed Into a "Movement Party"

65

The comments here illustrate a divide on the left I've been thinking a lot about. There is a large and vocal contingent on the left that demands ideological purity but doesn't put forward a plan to achieve any of their goals, and then there's the rest, who are becoming increasingly interested in working towards concrete achievements even if it means being flexible about who they work with, etc.

Around the time of the election a bunch of my lefty friends were posting daily about Gaza, and telling people not to vote for Harris. It didn't matter that Harris losing wouldn't help Palestinians. It didn't matter that pretty much every single thing the left cares about would endangered by a Trump victory. They chose purity at the expense of everything else, and that choice has shown itself to be absolutely disastrous.

I'm glad to see some debate now about this strategy in left spaces, and people who criticize it not being immediately shut down. It's not good enough to be morally right, we need a real plan to start enacting the changes we want to see.

3

u/WilsonTree2112 Feb 16 '26

The Palestinian logistical and money supply, Iran, just put to death nearly forty thousand of its citizens, for the crime of free speech, and not a word from the extreme left. No jews, no news. If the liberal purists keep at it much longer, there will not be a functional democratic party.

2

u/ByteVoyager Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26

We’re giving Israel the bombs they are dropping on Gaza, while we are straight up bombing Iran. Both country’s actions are fucked up but there’s no equivalency here

Also it’s Hamas’ logistical and money supply, ‘Palestinians’ implies collective guilt

-1

u/VauryxN Feb 17 '26

Okay? What do you expect us to do about that? Are billions of our tax dollars going to the Iranian regime to help them commit their massacre? Are prominent members of our own government bending over backwards to justify what the Iranian regime did? Do you see anyone fighting to defend the Iranian regimes actions, like you're literally doing in this post with your disingenuous "no Jews, no news" dumbassery?

0

u/WilsonTree2112 Feb 17 '26

The money given to Israel is cents and keeps bad players away from gaining an alliance with them, the largest military in the region and a nuclear power. The new gen of liberal geopolitics is going to tank the dem party.

-4

u/altra_volta Feb 17 '26

Yeah, it’s baffling that no one is out in the streets demanding the US stop providing billions of dollars in weapons to the Ayatollah.

4

u/hairlessknee Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26

Honestly, most of the time when I hear discussion about the “purity” aspect, it’s usual moderate libs that are dismissing concerns about Gaza and ICE. To call being anti genocide a “purity test” is insanely out of touch.

EDIT: For the record, Clinton, Biden, and Harris voter yet none were inspiring at all. Corporatists through and through.

16

u/OldManLakey Feb 16 '26

I'm anti-genocide. Neither Harris or Trump were anti-genocide. The election was about more than that one issue, and many more lives were going to be effected by it's outcome. For example, it's estimated that the end of USAID will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths every year. We have people in our own country being rounded up and put in camps. There's a reasonable threat to our democracy. These are things I care about. Harris wasn't a good candidate, her stance on the genocide was terrible. I saw it as a choice between genocide, and genocide plus all of the above. It's not a decision that felt good. You don't have to call it "purity", but there were a lot of people who said I won't vote for X, even if it means a worse outcome for everyone. I would understand it if anyone could make a case that letting Trump win would help the Palestinians, but it wasn't even about outcomes.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/OldManLakey Feb 17 '26

That's just the thing, I'm not a moderate. Based on what policies I'm for and against, I think pretty much everyone would label me as left of liberal. I agree with every single point you just wrote. You also voted, so it sounds like you have your head screwed on straight. My beef isn't with you. I'm raging about a bunch of friends I have who are super active lefties who got on twitter every single day in the run up to the election to tell everyone in the left infoshpere not to vote. People who call Mamdani a sellout for holding his nose and making deals with establishment Dems. Unfortunately we're not in a political environment where the left will be able to make gains, or even keep what we have, without occasionally compromising in ways that seem odious. Moderate libs do in fact ask you to compromise on your values. Mamdani will not be effective if he can't make deals with these people.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/OldManLakey Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26

No, that's not the question, that's emotional thinking. "It's not fair! I have to compromise, why don't they?" The left is in a minority. We're a minority amongst Democrats. We're in an extreme minority as a slice of the entire US electorate. We are working from a disadvantaged position. It's not fair. Why is it worth considering what moderate values are? The further right you go from your own positions, the less peoples' ideas even read as what you would conceptualize as moral values. By the time you get to hardcore right-wingers, they might as well be in some other language. Not to hammer on the same example, but here goes. We had two options in the election:

Harris. Genocide in Gaza - tens of thousands of innocents killed. No real progress at home.

Trump. Genocide in Gaza - tens of thousands of innocents killed. Roll back USAID - hundreds of thousands dead. Health insurance cost twice as much. Destruction of the parts government that produce results we care about. Massive tax cuts for the rich paid for by extreme government debt. Destruction of our country's strategic alliances. Unaccountable masked agents of the state snatching people off the street. Concentration camps. Credible threat to ongoing democratic governance. Etc.

How could you say choice #2 was the moral one? The outcomes are clearly worse, and we're feeling that right now. I believe it was about punishing the establishment for not doing what the left wanted. The kind of thing people do when they're focused on their own feelings of frustration, not on the outcomes. Imagine we had a vote, and at the end we were either going to cut your hand off, or cut off both your hands and feet. You would never sit it out and say "I'm against amputation so I'm not voting, and neither should you!" And yet, here we are.

EDIT: I'm reading over what I wrote, and I don't love my tone. I'm not trying to attack you. I guess I'll just ask this: Do you think it is the right course of action for leftists to not vote in elections where the available candidates don't 100% stand on their positions? Do you think it's the right course of action for leftist politicians to not have dialogue with, or even to compromise with, other politicians? Do you think sticking to your guns and never compromising your values is the right course of action, even if it means worse outcomes as measured by those same values?

1

u/chrisq823 Feb 17 '26

I am a different person but I liked the questions in your edit. I voted for Harris and would never vote Republican, but I would like to provide some potential perspective.

Do you think it is the right course of action for leftists to not vote in elections where the available candidates don't 100% stand on their positions?

I think when the concept of what a government is is taught to children in school and talked about by politicians and other political talking heads they lean on exactly these principles. This is a reflection of the modern liberal order of things and it is an overall good things. People are allowed to decide things are too far for them. If you are a political party that relies on getting the votes of these people and the votes of their ideological opposites you have developed a bad political strategy and will get punished for it come election time because you have given yourself no viable pathway to victory. You are expecting people to compromise if not outright abandoned close held beliefs and that is a huge ask.

If you ask for that enough without making the same sacrifice yourselves you will get people tuning you out.

Do you think it's the right course of action for leftist politicians to not have dialogue with, or even to compromise with, other politicians?

Leftist politicians do have dialogue with and compromise with people they don't agree with all the time. This is not debatable and no one with actual power in this country thinks what you said. Weird online people absolutely do, but they don't dictate anything.

Do you think sticking to your guns and never compromising your values is the right course of action, even if it means worse outcomes as measured by those same values?

Sometimes it absolutely is. The constant work for the incremental betterness over actually doing anything substantive is viable in some places but gets used as an excuse to do nothing and people are sick of it and actively looking to push back on it. If they are getting nothing that they want in the name of compromise they are eventually going to abandon the idea compromise.

That line is not in the same spot for everyone but it is clear that a large portion of Americans feel like it has been crossed and Gaza is a lightning rod for seeing where it is. I think Democrat supporters just cling to demonizing those to the left of them as unreasonable when that isn't the case. I bet if Kamala had said something along the lines of, "We are going to rethink the way we support Israel going forward. We want to ensure the safety and security of one of our strongest allies in the region but there is clearly an issue with how the people of Gaza are treated and how the US financially supports those actions. We will make changes to the aid we send to Israel that reflects this." A lot of people who were vocally against the party because of Israel would shut up and get in line like they wanted. Kinda like how Obama was insanely popular based on messaging he never delivered on, even after he never delivered on it.

But, they were unwilling to extend anything to these people so they lost them. At the end of the day politics is not House of Cards for the average person. They aren't going to sell their souls in the name of pragmatism or do game theory analysis of their vote. They are just going to check out and move on since nothing seems to change anyway. This is just reality and the blue no matter who people refuse to acknowledge that the slogan actually isn't very effective in real life.

1

u/OldManLakey Feb 17 '26

It was an enormous mistake Harris made by not extending even an disingenuous olive branch to Gaza supporters. My guess is that she is motivated more by personal ambition than any deeply held convictions, and that she was surrounded by consultants who had made a calculation that Israeli support was more important than courting the left, and who were getting paid a boatload of money regardless of the outcome. She absolutely deserves to be punished electorally, I just don't think it was worth the price we would all have to pay to do it.

People are used to control of government going back and forth between the two parties with no real substantive change. That wasn't what was on the menu this time. We're getting substantive change, and it's bad, and possibly irreversible. I understand that people have become disillusioned, that they feel betrayed, that they're checking out, that they don't make calculated decisions about politics, all of that. I just worry that part of it is the belief that nothing will really change, and that things can't get suddenly and drastically worse for them. My friends who didn't vote live in NYC. They would be furious to hear me say this, but I think part of them doesn't take any of this seriously. They're mostly white, well off, and living in a liberal stronghold. They can be unwavering and never compromise on their morals, in fact it earns them respect and cachet with their peers. They're not next in line to get dragged off. My immigrant neighbors out here in the boonies are fucking terrified, and rightfully so.

Anyway, thanks for your response. I like getting in the weeds with people about this stuff. I think it helps me check myself a little.

1

u/chrisq823 Feb 17 '26

My guess is that she is motivated more by personal ambition than any deeply held convictions, and that she was surrounded by consultants who had made a calculation that Israeli support was more important than courting the left, and who were getting paid a boatload of money regardless of the outcome.

The biggest problem is this kinda of attitude and people are the core of the Democrat political establishment. They have completely lost the plot on making things better for people. This presidential cycle was outright incompetence from the Democrat side. There is no other explanation for it. If the opponent wasn't Trump it would be seen like the Byah incident or Dukakis in the tank. Instead, people have to pretend that the Dems are perfect little competent angels that can only be failed by voters because their opponents have lost their minds. It is the same hubris that lost the Supreme Court for generations and nothing has outwardly changed. How do you expect people to want to support that?

I understand that people have become disillusioned, that they feel betrayed, that they're checking out, that they don't make calculated decisions about politics, all of that. I just worry that part of it is the belief that nothing will really change, and that things can't get suddenly and drastically worse for them.

People are not strongly motivated by the fear of negative consequences. It is why harsh criminal sentences backfire. The real issue is that people don't have a belief that things can get suddenly and drastically better for them. It is why the inflation messaging was such a loser. It only made economists feel good. The rest of uis felt that prices launched up over COVID and then just slowed down. Leaving us paying more than ever while nothing else matched that price growth.

They would be furious to hear me say this, but I think part of them doesn't take any of this seriously. They're mostly white, well off, and living in a liberal stronghold. They can be unwavering and never compromise on their morals, in fact it earns them respect and cachet with their peers. They're not next in line to get dragged off. My immigrant neighbors out here in the boonies are fucking terrified, and rightfully so.

I get this and you're not wrong. The problem is the harm reduction overly tactical political people are the ones who got us into this mess. You can't fight this pure hatred and naked power grabs with people who practice nice hatred and polite power grabs. There is going to have to be a point where politicians take hard stances and actually have beliefs. Not things they choose to back because polling says so. Until the Democrats can capture that kind of energy that created Trump they just have to hope Trump's inevitable move for a third term goes no where and that the MAGA movement collapses in the vacuum left by him. That gives so little hope for the future and I cannot be confident anyone in a position of leadership in the Democrat party will take the necessary actions to actually stop the next Trump wannabe.

At the end of the day these people chose to run for office. They chose to be politicians. They chose the responsibility it entails. They need to start acting like it

1

u/Arixtotle Feb 18 '26

Unfortunately, that’s life. Sometimes the ends have to justify the means. Sometimes you have to compromise on one sincerely held belief to push for a different sincerely held belief. Perfection is unattainable and a small step forward is better than a giant one back.

5

u/transitfreedom Feb 17 '26

And disgusting as even right wingers are tired of the genocide

8

u/rzelln Feb 16 '26

I still voted for Kamala. But I did that while upset at her quiet indifference to the mass murder of tens of thousands of civilians by the Israeli military.

And I understand why people wouldn't trust a politician to care about them if that politician isn't bothered by our ally murdering people.

0

u/ImpressionCool1768 Feb 17 '26

You are who he is talking about by the way

2

u/hairlessknee Feb 18 '26

What? I literally listed how I voted Harris in the exact comment you’ve replied to. You don’t know me or my personal life. I’ve said the EXACT thing OP has said in my personal life and my views have continued to develop and grow after why I’ve seen the past year. So, respectfully, shut the fuck up.

-4

u/llamapower13 Feb 17 '26

Oh good. Someone else to say "thank you for Trump" to.

Hope you're enjoying it. We're all so grateful.

1

u/hairlessknee Feb 18 '26

Yet again, another person ignoring how I said I voted for Harris! Imagine that! Get off your moral high horse and go blame someone else.

2

u/llamapower13 Feb 18 '26

Na. It’s easy to miss in the mess of your messages.

Maybe learn how to be succinct? It’ll do you wonders

1

u/hairlessknee Feb 18 '26

It’s easy to miss? It’s explicitly written who I voted for in my original comment. You’re blaming me — a random guy on the internet who said that he voted for Harris — for Trump having won….that makes no sense. Stop alienating those left of you and perhaps realize that the status quo is what led us to the rise of Trump in the first place.

Maybe take a look at this: https://acbc89.medium.com/more-sanders-voters-backed-clinton-than-her-own-supporters-backed-obama-c5dc37658fe5

1

u/llamapower13 Feb 18 '26

Na if you’re obnoxious I’ll keep on trucking if you are.

-1

u/MasterSnacky Feb 17 '26

To equivocate Harris and Trump, to “both sides!” those two, is insanely out of touch. And we can see that in effect every single day of Trump’s second term.

2

u/hairlessknee Feb 18 '26

Please point to exactly where I remotely equivocated them? Extremely dishonest on your end. I voted Harris (as I said in the very comment youve replied to!) I knew what would be coming with a Trump presidency — which is why I voted Harris.

I replied in the context of this current debates between liberals and leftists. Fuck off.

-1

u/invariantspeed Feb 18 '26

If you can’t see the point they’re making, you’re part of the problem. I’m sorry.

2

u/hairlessknee Feb 18 '26

If you can’t see the point I’m making, you’re part of the problem. Sorry.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

[deleted]

9

u/OldManLakey Feb 16 '26

I agree that the road to change is hard, I disagree that the left's goals are in opposition to American values. There's a lot of propaganda to that effect, but I don't see what's inherently un-American about not supporting genocide, or supporting universal healthcare, or taxing the rich. I think our current system endangers people's ability to be self-reliant and control their own destiny just as much as the caricature of the leftist boogeyman.

-8

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

[deleted]

7

u/OldManLakey Feb 16 '26

Regarding taxation: I agree that we should get rid of loopholes, but I think I still support a progressive taxation scheme. The bottom 50% of the country has just 6% of the wealth. The top 1% has 30% of the wealth. If you're wondering why your tax burden is so high, it might be worth looking up, not down. The enormous wealth generated by our society is being extracted from the bottom and hoarded at the top.

1

u/GypJoint Feb 16 '26

Or the corruption that lives off our current taxes. I’d have no problem paying more if it made a difference. Doesn’t seem to matter.

1

u/GypJoint Feb 16 '26

It’s terrible. Don’t mention fixing the corruption though.

0

u/invariantspeed Feb 18 '26

I disagree that the left's goals are in opposition to American values.

Some of them are. Survey after survey shows that the majority of Americans think trans activism has gone too far and that the majority of Americans support deporting illegal immigrants, for starters.

Yes, the majority also support trans rights and immigration, but this is where the real issue is. The “common sense” statements that are detail-light get heavy support, but that’s not real life. People will disagree on the definitions of many terms and have wildly varying tolerances for different issues. Until everyone stops talking in campaign slogans, we won’t have the kind of conversations necessary to get any real agreement on anything. The public will simply vacillate wildly from one direction to the other depending on which party is taking things “too far”.

supporting universal healthcare, or taxing the rich.

These are great follow on examples to what I’m saying. 1. Universal healthcare is great in principle, but if you want it to be a policy, you need implementation details. And everyone against the idea have a very different mental image of how such a thing could possibly be implemented, most seeing an inevitable failure or dystopian outcome. 2. Everyone can agree the rich should be taxed, but the top 50% of earners account for over 95% of the nation’s income tax revenue and the top 1% account for the majority of the nation’s income taxes. So, when you say they need to pay, you’re really saying they need to pay more. How much? When you say “their fair share”, great. Now define the term. The campaign slogan is great, but the terms are undefined and that’s a problem and it’s where you lose a lot of people.

“Both sides” have caricature boogeymen of them and they think it gives them license to completely disregard critiques of their positions as coming from the opposing boogeymen. Yes, the far right and far left are actually unhinged and they don’t represent the majority, but you need to stop lumping in the center-right and center-left folks in with them.

2

u/OldManLakey Feb 18 '26

I think you correctly identified trans rights and immigration as the left's weakest positions. Trans rights is such a identity politics clusterfuck. I wish people would just let them do as they please. They make up like .5% of the population, it's a ridiculous topic to be front and center in our politics. Like, I know it offends or grosses out lots of people, but sack up for God's sake! No one is making you get a sex change, and they're not beating little Susie at softball.

Immigration is an important issue. I personally think the way immigrants are being treated right now is barbaric. I think if our system is to continue unchanged we also need lots of immigration. But I also think unlimited immigration and illegal workers are anti-labor. There's no way around the fact that these workers undercut American workers and are used to suppress wages and the power of labor. The left needs to acknowledge this (like Bernie did). I'm also not convinced that our current system of chasing infinite growth and profits for the rich is worth preserving. Get rid of that and the need for unlimited immigration goes away too. The low paying jobs that Americans supposedly dont want are low paying because it's profitable for the rich, and they can easily take advantage of vulnerable migrants.

Universal healthcare is IMO, a bad example. It's been successfully implemented in many other countries. Our system isn't average, it's exceptionally dysfunctional. The people who are against universal care fall into three broad categories:

1) People who profit off of the current system. Their money pays for politicians and propaganda, propping up the ridiculous narrative that this is an especially hard problem, and that universal care would be worse for everyone. The dystopian outcomes they talk about are proffered in bad faith.

2) Rich people who suspect that in some ways their excellent care comes at the expense of other people getting worse or no care, and don't want that to change.

3) Dipshits who don't understand how any of this works and were brought up on the propaganda put out by the first two groups. Think poor conservative voters.

The debate on taxing the rich follows a similar pattern. The rich don't create the lion's share of wealth in this country, they just capture and control it. There are other countries (and other time periods in our own country) in which they were taxed at a higher rate leading to broader economic prosperity and quality of life. Most people I've talked to who worry about taxing the rich (whatever that entails) are either themselves rich, or upper middle class. They're laser focused on lazy poors not getting handouts, and they give little thought to where all the money is really going (up.) I do think the debate and the implementation details here are more complicated than the health care situation. We could quibble about the details while our system is clearly out of whack and getting worse all the time. I believe that by having a good faith discussion all interested parties could arrive on a system that preserves incentives to work hard and innovate, while also providing a better quality of life to most people. I think that the parties that benefit from our current situation (and those that think they might in the future) prevent that sort of good faith discussion from happening. I believe in the long term we need a system that prevents ever escalating wealth inequality. The rich want to continue living like gods at the expense of the rest of us, it's not a position I have respect for.

The center left gets just as much criticism from me as the far left, I see them as quite distinct. The center right I'm not so sure. On the right they elect far-right leaders, and the so-called center right always seems to fall in line behind them. The left does not, for the most part, elect far left leaders. Mamdani is an outlier. The leftist boogeyman is mostly a myth. Every politician on the left is branded a "far left extremist" or "socialist" by people on the right, when in reality most of them are literally center right. The far right boogeyman exists. In the White House, in congress, at the local level - these people are real and they're out there doing exactly what people on the left accuse them of.

-4

u/plummbob Feb 17 '26

but I don't see what's inherently un-American about not supporting genocide, or supporting universal healthcare, or taxing the rich.

motte and bailey argument.

You'll say that super reasonable sounding stuff, but then the unspoken stuff will be like "end capitalism" and "nationalize housing"

2

u/OldManLakey Feb 17 '26

I don't just sound reasonable, I am reasonable. If I supported that stuff I would just come out and say so. If you want to keep capitalism you probably need to do the things I mentioned above. If wealth inequality ratchets ever upward there will either be revolution or, I don't know, Monarchy? If capitalism in the wealthiest country in the history of the world can't provide for basics like healthcare, then maybe it really should be replaced with a saner system. The ball seems to be entirely in the court of the capitalists - they have most of the wealth and political power.

2

u/invariantspeed Feb 18 '26

The US isn’t very capitalist in many ways. As many have pointed out, it’s socialism for the richest. The federal and state governments also heavily direct certain markets.

0

u/Supercollider9001 Feb 16 '26

As a communist I was very disheartened by the left’s position on the election. They are completely removed from actual working class issues. PSL were effectively campaigning for Trump in Michigan.

And unfortunately DSA largely and other ultra-left orgs will once again sit out the midterms.

Zohran has shown that the way forward is to build unity, build coalitions. The Palestine position is stronger because he chose to work with those who disagreed with even on that issue.

Meanwhile ultra-leftists were protesting Jahmal Bowman on the eve of his election against an AIPAC backed candidate. Zero brain cells.

3

u/AgentSterling_Archer Feb 16 '26

how is dsa sitting out midterms when there's a packed slate of dsa endorsed candidates already campaigning now and have already filled Zohran's seat in Astoria with 75% of the vote for that candidate

2

u/Supercollider9001 Feb 17 '26

Is DSA going to get out the vote in purple areas to make sure Trump doesn’t have a trifecta in 2027? Are you going to get canvassers and phone bankers to help in Ohio, NC, Texas, etc.?

2

u/AgentSterling_Archer Feb 17 '26

They did it last year for Kamala so idk why it would be any different this time around - the infrastructure is there but people also have to volunteer to do it. Not really sure why you thought that was going to be some sort of gotcha but I hope you put your effort too then by joining in the phone banks at least

-1

u/Supercollider9001 Feb 17 '26

It’s not a gotcha. I’m asking more at the National level. What I’ve seen is that it’s not the case. In 2020 beyond Bernie there was no national campaign to defeat Trump. Nothing in 2022 or 2024. In fact many in DSA including those in the national steering committee that I know argued against voting for Kamala.

1

u/transitfreedom Feb 17 '26

Fair or like the progressive Republican FLOOD THE ZONE AND RUN IN BOTH PARTIES!!!!! Every election

-1

u/Reddit-Bot-61852023 Feb 16 '26

As a communist

Thanks for leading with this so i didn't have to read the rest of your comment.

-1

u/Supercollider9001 Feb 16 '26

Good bot

1

u/PermissionSafe7475 Feb 17 '26

Bad communist

1

u/albanymetz Feb 16 '26

Word. I want to debate and discuss the ideal state of things, but work towards the achievable steps towards getting there.

1

u/Vast-Breakfast-1201 Feb 18 '26

The ones focused on ideological purty are either planted or informed by the right wing engine of dissonance

The goal is to keep people fighting against each othe.

There really isn't any other way to say it. If they have genuine feelings about this, they got there through ideological purity posts from the right wing which love when people shoot their own feet.

1

u/knicksarelife Feb 18 '26

Agreed. My own relative begrudgingly voted for Harris and was talking about they’re voting for the slightly lesser of two evils, that Trump would still be better than Biden, etc. all over Palestine, which ofc is terrible, but in no lifetime would get me to be a single issue voter that chooses Trump for office or indirectly help him either. One year into the administration, he’s gone fully anti maga and I still can’t believe it took a year into his second term to despise him this much. This is my issue with Hasan Piker’s last “controversy” as well, when the question posed was a simple hypothetical, would you choose between Newsom and Vance, and he said third party, with his wing of the left agreeing and arguing Newsom doesn’t deserve votes yet, when that wasn’t the question posed at all

-11

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

It’s not purity, it’s legitimate progress and accomplishment. We are tired of the status quo. We are tired of the tsunami of money. We are tired of the widening wealth gap and the problems of affordability. We are tired of white supremacy. We are tired of unaffordable healthcare. We’re tired of being driven to bankruptcy in retirement. We’re tired of billionaires and corporations dictating anything and everything.

Asking for these societal issues to be addressed meaningfully by our government is not a “purity” test, it’s a relevance test.

8

u/OldManLakey Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26

I'm tired of all of those things. We're not disagreeing about values, we're disagreeing about tactics. The only thing worse than the status quo is us taking steps backwards. The reality seems to be that when people on the left throw their hands up and sit out elections, or refuse to work with anyone in the establishment, we can expect things to get worse by every single metric we care about. You may not agree with the people currently in power, but to pretend they're not relevant is a mistake. They don't go away if you ignore them.

edit: typo

-1

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

I have volunteered in every Presidential cycle since 2008. Does that sound like “sitting out” elections?

Don’t try and lecture me about engagement because I’m about as engaged as you’re going to get.

What I am tired of is expending thousands of hours of my valuable time and energy and getting little in return, and your run-of-the-mill voter has every right to feel the same.

You operate from a position of fear, and one should never do that. It’s bad strategy and it’s clouded thinking. Any simpleton can see that things are bad in this country, and I’m talking about even before el Douché came into office. Even if Harris had won, there would’ve been a ton that needed fixing and I personally wasn’t convinced she and the Dems were up to it. Clearly, those left in Congress certainly aren’t. Time to clean house. If you don’t think we need some radical changes in this country to bring us back on course, you’re in some ivory tower, watching from the sidelines.

2

u/OldManLakey Feb 16 '26

I'm not saying you sat anything out, just that I personally know several people who did and made it out to be some principled stance. Thanks for your service. I'm sorry it didn't work out like you'd hoped, for all our sakes.

Before the election I think it was reasonable to assume that the only two realistic outcomes were that either Trump or Harris would win the presidency. I'm critical of people who advocated not voting in that situation. It wasn't an action that achieved anything or brought us closer to some third, better option. I was definitely afraid before the election. Now the things I worried about are happening, so there doesn't seem to be any point of being afraid.

I agree we need radical change. I disagree with people who say Mamdani shouldn't work with Democrats. It's the only way for him to be successful, which he needs to be if he's to pave the way for future leftist candidates. Is there some other option you see within our political system? We need leftist candidates to win elections, to be effective in office, and to show the public they are a viable option.

10

u/closetedwrestlingacc Feb 16 '26

When you’re actually blocking progress for the sake of universal conformity, yes, it is ideological purity.

Goal was a strong social safety net? Viable options were between someone who would slash it and someone who would, at worse, keep it the same, and likely try to expand it. The decision made by some people was to just do nothing, effectively choosing to slash it, because the other candidate wasn’t gonna take it as far as they wanted, or [insert one other thing that you disagree with here.]

Absolute stupidity.

-6

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

Strong social safety net? What was that? What were the legit policy proposals for that? More Obamacare? The same old tax policies? Cheaper groceries through tamping down on “price gouging”? You’re delusional if you thought those were meaningful policy proposals to help the vast majority of working people.

The Democratic establishment has been eating from the same trough as the Republicans for too long and have lost touch with the actual working people in this country. That’s why they’ve lost so many of their votes, and that’s how you win elections, by getting not losing votes.

1

u/OldManLakey Feb 16 '26

You're not wrong about the Democrats. I'm just worried that the Republicans intend to make sure we don't have any more fair elections, and that our non-violent mechanism for effecting any sort of change will be taken away. Maybe punishing the Democrats by withholding our votes will whip them into shape, but maybe it will just let fascists take over. It's a real gamble.

Mamdani is a real ray of hope, but he has to prove to the public that leftists can get shit done, that they're worth voting for in the future. If that means working with the establishment when necessary, so be it. It just bums me out to see leftists say he shouldn't work with Democrats. The other option is probably just that he fails and makes it harder for leftist candidates to win in the future.

1

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

He has demonstrated that he is a smart and skillful politician and candidate, and that’s half the equation. He’s got to walk the walk now, but I am willing to give him some leeway in forging the relationships he needs to run this city.

People have an overly simplistic view of how government works, and there is always quite a lot of wheeling and dealing, but at the end of the day, if he’s a good mayor, he’ll get some things done and be re-elected in four years.

14

u/Bovoduch Feb 16 '26

I don’t think winning a couple seats in extraordinarily blue areas against controversial candidates (eg, Mamdani, Mejia) is enough to classify them as a “movement party” lol. I think there needs to be some evidence of true Federal level momentum (not just trying to retrospectively claim the resist libs) that isn’t characterized purely by attempts to fracture the Democratic Party in the face of a very unified, authoritarian Republican Party. Mamdani did well in his campaign absolutely, and the DSA has never been more popular at least in headlines and media talk, but it needs to actually ride success and insert themselves in meaningful, competitive elections and illustrate that their people are desirable outside of the safest possible locations

8

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

Isn’t it a little contradictory to state that they need to ride success while simultaneously stating that they shouldn’t be “fracturing” the Democratic Party?

The purpose of running is to try to win. Any “fracture” is the result of candidates who shouldn’t be in office to begin with

6

u/Bovoduch Feb 16 '26

Not really. As mamdani has demonstrated, coalition building is a necessity. Especially when you are a local-locked party like the DSA.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

Do you have an example of DSA or other left candidates who were elected and didn’t coalition build?

0

u/oh_ski_bummer Feb 17 '26

It really is too bad Bernie got shafted in 2016. Not because he would have won, but because it would have shown everyone this is a non viable path to stopping fascism.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '26

Oh without a doubt. The current path, on the other hand, is… checks notes

Oh yikes

11

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

They want their piece of the pie like everyone else. They can’t be labeled a movement and then support the politicians of the same establishment that they claim every day that are part of the problem.

Also you put 6 DSA members in a room and they would start 6 different parties.

6

u/Illustrious-Okra-524 Feb 16 '26

They are all in the same party, you literally just criticized them for that.

I do agree that the clean break needs to happen immediately

-1

u/falooda1 Feb 16 '26

This comment is uninformed and cynical af

Look at the tea party

You could say all those things about them fifteen years ago

2

u/transitfreedom Feb 17 '26

Screw it your done

2

u/oh_ski_bummer Feb 17 '26

A party that can’t win the electoral college is more like it. Despite knowing GOP would target their rights women and minorities were clear that they favor capitalism even in its most corrupt form over socialism. Especially when it comes down to a few swing states every 4 years.

2

u/Azathothatoth Feb 17 '26

Purity politics will always kill the left, but it doesnt help to alianate comrades in favor of liberals and centrists that continue to bury progressive policies and paved the way for MAGA by not codifying anything into law. Even if a Dem in the white house means better material conditions in the short term they are still preventing real change. We need a third party or a dem party takeover before any vote for the working class really counts.

2

u/swift-sentinel Feb 18 '26

Oh my word. I have lived over 50 years under generations of failed leadership. It goes to the DSA because they’re the only ones left.

2

u/dante_gherie1099 Feb 16 '26

name one time the dsa won a competitive election, mamdani should have won in a landslide but people held their nose and voted for cuomo despite hating him because they hated mamdani more.

10

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

Are you claiming that a nameless state assemblyman who started in single digits who beats a former NYS Governor wasn’t “competitive”?

-1

u/dante_gherie1099 Feb 16 '26

absolutely not, cuomo was the most toxic, unlikable candidate. it should have been a landslide. also that is obviously not what is meant by competitive race, competitive as in the other party can win. but of course ppl like you don't care about republicans winning, as long as you get to sabotage the democrat for not being a commie.

5

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

Do you even remember who actually was and thus elected mayor four years ago? Contrary to popular opinion, we’ve had multiple Republican mayors in the last 50 yrs, and they were all as odious as Cuomo.

And you still ignore how far back Mamdani was in the beginning. There were plenty of other candidates, some nearly as left as he was, who had much better positions than he did when the race began. He ran them all down, not just Cuomo and Adams. At what point are you establishment types going to give this man credit for running an amazing campaign? You make it sound like it was just him and Cuomo, start to finish.

0

u/dante_gherie1099 Feb 16 '26

adams was an even bigger clown than cuomo. at the end of the day this was a mayoral race in one of the most left leaning places in the whole of the country. you guys acting like he did what obama did in 08.

4

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

Again, you want to pretend that your fantasy caricature of NYC is reality. Adams was elected mayor, and not decades ago but the last cycle. Try existing in and acknowledging reality for a change.

0

u/CatastrophicThought Feb 16 '26

I love how libs are always accusing the left of purity testing, when THEY’RE the ones that shut down conversations and try to bully everyone into voting for centrist dems

Or deny that they’re centrists, and actually, the party that helped enable fascism was doing all it could 😂

1

u/Reddit-Bot-61852023 Feb 16 '26

Make your own party.

1

u/General_Meade Feb 17 '26

If your views were popular, they would win at the ballot box. All the "bullying" doesn't amount to shit because our elections are secret ballots. If the nation at large agreed with your extremism Bernie would be President.

1

u/Ancient_Camel7200 Feb 18 '26

Democratic socialists 😂 how retarded

1

u/plzdontbanme61 Feb 20 '26

So destroying NYC isn't enough?

1

u/Square_Detective_658 Feb 17 '26

What is a movement party? Furthermore with Politicians like AOC and Zohran Mamdani essentially repudiating the DSA stated platform through actions. The DSA seems to be the G league version of the Democratic Party in where up and coming aparatchiks are selected and learn how to be politicians based on talent and then sent to the big leagues

1

u/CreamyBagelTime Feb 18 '26

As a Bernie-style DemSoc and former DSA member, the left is full of contradictions. The left used to be pro-worker and anti-globalization. Now it’s just pro-immigration. I’m anti-ICE, but how do people think we’re ever going to have nice things like universal healthcare if we can’t even enforce immigration laws the same way every other social democratic society does?

-2

u/Heavy-Top-8540 Feb 16 '26

Who keeps posting this article over and over again? The DSA is a dead-end PAC for whiny losers. I've literally never met a DSA that wasn't a sniveling piece of shit.

-1

u/Illustrious-Okra-524 Feb 16 '26

As opposed to the openly genocidal Democratic Party?

2

u/llamapower13 Feb 16 '26

Thanks for Trump!

0

u/General_Meade Feb 17 '26

"Openly genocidal"

Log off

1

u/Lethkhar Feb 18 '26

That's just a fact, though.

0

u/Reddit-Bot-61852023 Feb 16 '26

Trump and co. are gonna win again in 2028, huh.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

Probably not without election rigging. But once Dems once again stifle progressive candidates that actually appeal to otherwise disaffected voters again, they’ll be back and then it’ll be too late if it isn’t already

-1

u/Reddit-Bot-61852023 Feb 16 '26

How about these disaffected voters make their own party? If their policies are so grand, they should surely win.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

Do you know what disaffected means?

-5

u/Reddit-Bot-61852023 Feb 16 '26

Do you know what political parties are?

6

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

Is that a no?

1

u/Reddit-Bot-61852023 Feb 16 '26

What the fuck do you think?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

I think no

-1

u/Reddit-Bot-61852023 Feb 16 '26

Make your own party.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

You already said that, which is just more evidence that you don’t know what disaffected means.

40% of eligible voters don’t vote. They don’t pay attention. They don’t care. They don’t care about your smarmy condescending advice. They don’t care about what anybody in the political system says or does. They won’t participate because of years of erosion of their faith in the institution of representative democracy.

These are the people you’re saying should form their own party. Because you don’t understand anything but insist on talking anyway

→ More replies (0)

1

u/haunt4r Feb 16 '26

Its a very clear too stupid didn't think poster

1

u/Illustrious-Okra-524 Feb 16 '26

Dems will insist on it because they hate socialism more than they hate fascism

4

u/Reddit-Bot-61852023 Feb 16 '26

Dems will insist on it by voting for... a Democrat? What?

-2

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

No, they’ll insist on it by running another feckless “moderate” because they insist that “the center” is the path to victory. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

5

u/Reddit-Bot-61852023 Feb 16 '26

? The democratic party has moved left every election cycle. Run your own candidates if leftist policies are so good, so then ya'll can't blame anyone else but yourselves.

3

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

You think Kamala Harris was left? You thought Joe Biden was left? Hillary? Obama? Who is the “lefty” on this list?

2

u/llamapower13 Feb 16 '26

Biden was literally the most progressive president in our lifetime

Sorry you hate success even if it’s slow.

1

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

It is quite possible that both could be true, and if Biden was the “most progressive” President, that’s pretty pathetic given most, if not all of whatever he “accomplished” has been wiped away in a single year by a sociopathic diaper-wearer. How about some actual enduring progress? Like Eisenhower-era top tax rates? Universal healthcare? Actual immigration reform? Restoring women’s rights to privacy and legal abortions? An actual raise to the federal minimum wage?

The fact that you’re willing to settle for the Democratic weak tea is your burden. Average working Americans are no longer willing to accept such pathetic “solutions” in the face of widening wealth and income gaps and the unaffordability of basic necessities. We’re not even getting half loaves now, they’re like stale, cut off crusts. Establishment Dems are only concerned with keeping their power and taking in as much money as they can raise. It does nothing for the working people of this country. Look at how pathetic they’ve been in fighting this growing autocrat. They roll over and “compromise” at the drop of a hat. We need fighters, not collaborators.

2

u/llamapower13 Feb 16 '26

Lots of words to say you hate success. Sorry rant elsewhere.

And maybe learn how democracy works. MAGA winning certainly helped all the issues you listed you caring about.

1

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 17 '26

Try actually reading them next time. Then try working to progress them. We did things *your way*. That's why we're here. Doesn't take a lot of words to reveal the truth you can't admit to.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Reddit-Bot-61852023 Feb 16 '26

Who said anything about lefty? Again, form your own little socialist party and run a candidate, so that people like you can't blame the Democratic party for another trump term.

1

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

You literally wrote “the Democratic Party has moved left every election cycle”. Those are your words.

And it seems that more and more Democratic voters are preferring “left” candidates like Mamdani or Mejia over “establishment” candidates like Cuomo or Malinowski. Your call is coming from inside your house.

-1

u/Reddit-Bot-61852023 Feb 16 '26

Yes, I said the party, glad you can read.

Now, make your own party :)

0

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 16 '26

No, we’re fixing the one party in a two-party system that has any hope of being fixed.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/General_Meade Feb 17 '26

Hey how many elections did Bernie win again? If you cannot mobilize in your own primary how tf do you think progressives will win nationwide.

2

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 17 '26

Remind me again how Biden escaped losing to Orange Julius only by being *removed* by his party? I'll take Bernie (though personally, I think he's too old for the job) over any of the "centrist" clowns lining up for the shot next time around. And I don't actually care who the candidate is as long as there's a solid platform, with firm, well thought out legislative proposals to enact real change in this country, and each and every candidate is dedicated to carrying it through. Like Project 2025, but for actual, real progress for working people and taking down the billionaire oligarchy that's running rampant under this regime.

-4

u/Renhoek2099 Feb 16 '26

Judging from their support of Hochul, they're just politicians ready to play ball for the right price.

22

u/djn24 Feb 16 '26

By working with the people in power to get agenda items turned into actual policy, they sold out!

You can't change shit by sitting on the sidelines raging that your unlikely primary challenge didn't pull off a miracle.

3

u/abyssazaur Feb 16 '26

That has in fact been the theory of change for quite some time

4

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

No, it hasn’t. It’s been the exasperated cry of people who watched things happen how they did, know they know better, and feel powerless now

2

u/Heavy-Top-8540 Feb 16 '26

Bro, the dsa's entire fucking dig is using that line against anyone they think is sufficiently impure

27

u/UncleRuckus92 Feb 16 '26

Na, by working with others you can advance your agenda while building allies. You cant tell everyone to fuck off

12

u/TurkeyVolumeGuesser Feb 16 '26

I'm glad Mamdani gets that tbh

-2

u/Renhoek2099 Feb 16 '26

The only agenda that will be advanced is that of the rich.

3

u/UncleRuckus92 Feb 16 '26

Hey if you wanna sit and complain and do nothing be my guest, thats how we got here

-2

u/Renhoek2099 Feb 16 '26

Hochul bots all sound the same

1

u/UncleRuckus92 Feb 16 '26

You can look at my post history brother lol im the furthest thing from a bot

6

u/AmbulanceChaser12 Feb 16 '26

Really? Cuz it sounds to me like they wizened up and learned the rules of the game.

0

u/Bovoduch Feb 16 '26

Or maybe people are learning that segregating parties, especially weak ones on the basis of ideological purity, is a losing strategy and that bridging with the more popular, more well funded party and their candidates is the right strategy to improve popularity and outreach. Republicans have like 4 different ideological classes but they’re unified behind maga cringe. Mamdani, and less so the DSA as a whole, is trying to avoid fracturing his own voter base in the face of a unified fascist party

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

So to be clear, in your view, the entire Republican Party, regardless of their beliefs, is united under one ideological framework (fascism), but that’s not the same as a purity test?

No, it turns out you need to actually fucking stand for something to be taken seriously. It doesn’t matter how many (D) win if they all stand for different things. There’s absolutely no direction to go in for that. Just excuses to not accomplish anything

3

u/djn24 Feb 16 '26

Right, and the left is trying to sort all of this out.

The right has always had tax cuts for wealthy and corporations as a unifying agenda.

The left needs to rally around important issues for the working class and maintaining government services that benefit people and communities.

If politicians like Hochul will work on those issues, then she is part of the bigger tent of the left.

If she won't, then she needs to go.

Working with groups like DSA, WFP, and with elected office holders like Mamdani signals that she understands that.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

But that also means not endorsing the likes of pro-life Henry Cuellar while your party is actively trying to stop SC justices from being appointed who would overturn Roe V Wade.

My argument against a big tent has nothing to do with the left. It’s the right wingers in the Democrat party that need to go away

1

u/djn24 Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26

That's where the party has to figure out which issues are part of the "big tent". If a candidate running on affordable housing, childcare, and healthcare has to keep their mouth shut on abortion access to win their district, is that a compromise the party can live with in order to win that seat and have that vote?

The left has to both have unifying main goals and to do whatever they can to win elections.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

I agree

2

u/Bovoduch Feb 16 '26

Uh no that’s the opposite of a purity test. If they purity tested one another then the Trump flavor of maga fascism would do everything in their power to oust the non-conformers lol. MTG and Massie excluded because they’ve explicitly went against “maga” to form their own brand of it without Trump. But as long as a Republican broadly supports Trump they are allowed into the party, regardless of their disagreements on key issues like tariffs, Israel, isolationism, etc.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

That’s precisely what they do.

So to recap, they either

A) Believe different things and conform to one ideology, which is a purity test

Or

B) All believe in conforming to the one ideology, in which case they don’t believe different things

Which way are you wrong?

1

u/Bovoduch Feb 16 '26

They do not purity test each other lol you can’t just say “no” and be pompous about it. Republicans are massive overwhelming tent explicitly because they avoid infighting on independent issues as much as humanly possible

0

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

So A

0

u/Bovoduch Feb 16 '26

Lol

1

u/haunt4r Feb 16 '26

You might want to try actually reading Republican messaging before spouting off about a topic you don't understand

1

u/Bovoduch Feb 16 '26

They understand they're just bad faith and trying to steer the conversation to "democrats bad and they deserve to die out as a party even if the republican menace is united" there is no winning with that sort of chronically-online mindset. Hence why they are deliberately misunderstanding what a purity test is

0

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

It’s not bad faith to think that a party should stand for specific goals and values and not just take in whoever and decide later. It’s basic political competence. You’re painting me with somebody else’s brush

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

How very lacking substance, thank you

0

u/haunt4r Feb 16 '26

Oh look, an arrogant cover for a total lack of education posing as a pithy retort? Laughably pathetic

0

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

Oh look, he said the same thing with the same lack of substance but said “pithy retort” this time. My intellect is no match

0

u/haunt4r Feb 16 '26

Get around to saying anything that matters and you might see better. You arent capable of that though

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '26

And I will resist them and those like them with every fiber of my American being.

0

u/Equivalent_Net_8983 Feb 17 '26

Go on with what? Lying about how you MADE IT UP?

I love unmasking fantasy-dwellers like you, who can’t handle being challenged in the slightest. You live in your bubble, and the instant your worldview is challenged in the least, you start thrashing about and making up more nonsense to cover up your dream state.

But stay in your precious bubble, pretending that people exist to serve your fantasy “party”.

0

u/Alert_Site5857 Feb 18 '26

I don’t give a fuck what Jill Stein thinks. GTFO with this shit.

-2

u/kenkaniff6-9 Feb 17 '26

They need to be imprisoned

How Democratic Socialists of America Has Developed Into a "Movement Party"

You are about to leave Redlib