Another1917

[Another1917 @Another1917]

How long until DSA finally splits over the question of political independence?

The party building tendency is going nowhere.

It gained traction during the decline of DSA, after their Democrats sold them out under Biden.

But DSA only grows by running Democrats.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@noahpasaran @bioleera Being at the ground floor would only benefit political insiders.

If AOC runs, DSA will get the same benefit in notoriety it got from Mamdani.

August 2027 gives the organization 15 months to capitalize on the situation.

Also puts opposition to AOC up to the democracy of DSA.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@harbingerofwoke The inertia of DSA has always been towards the electoral project in the Democratic Party.

The growth from Bernie. The fall with the loss of an identity before Mamdani. The new growth in the Democratic Party.

Its prospects are social democratic New Deal politics called socialism

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@harbingerofwoke 1/3rd the organization joined since Mamdani. I agree it would go that way, it's Democrats that are joining.

Is there a resolution requiring a vote? I'm seeing a claim that a full member vote is required by a resolution from DSA's last Congress.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@CKIIIEnjoyer @dj_mackelfresh @gammison Where's the resolution?

It's a reasonable take if the organization is actually set up that way. But a lot of people join DSA for pure democracy. If a member-wide vote was approved, this move is very suspect.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@PippengerHarlo

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@DualPowerThreat @DanielDenvir @unionGustavo Wait, is that the guy that crashed out on Bad Faith like a week ago?

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@Notalib70742007 I saw a screenshot allegedly from a @rhodyDSA member. It said it was related to his politicking with conservative Democrats, i.e. telling DSA one thing and then doing another, on many occasions.

Independently verify what I'm saying, because I'm also just an observer.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@monstroustomato @RevolverJerm DSA is an organization not an ideology, and one founded 15 years after the assassination of MLK.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@UtilityCalc @KDicupe There's no size where a "clean break" is viable.

With every new elected official, DSA becomes larger and more entrenched in the Democratic Party.

Growth under this model and dependence on Democrats are one and the same.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@KraushTakes There's plenty of evidence to that effect. It's not illegal. New (unconditional) laws had to be passed to destroy the party

Also and importantly, their structure saved so many people from being targeted in the illegal witch-hunts.

Disagree with it strategically but it's founded

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@KraushTakes You can have that opinion. I disagree and the lessons of CPUSA make that obvious.

On principle, what obligation did the CPUSA have to make public and disclose all matters of their internal organization? None. That was propaganda in a reactionary American witch-hunt.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@KraushTakes But what about cities where the Democratic Party machine is weak?

That would be an advantageous position for an independent party and less advantageous for DSA, whose membership is driven by electoral successes in the Democratic Party.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@KraushTakes There are some objective facts that would contribute to disproportionate presence in smaller cities.

Like, NYC DSA is able to enter a new level of organization because of the NYC Democratic Party machine. DSA's is extremely well suited for that environment.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@metrictensor @lefty_md and @AndreEastonBX

The argument boils down to misrepresenting the American party system.

The collapse of the Second party system led to the new Republican Party and the liquidation of the slave-owners.

Class war in the American system requires a new party willing to lead it.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@tamarah67 @lefty_md @smokeynj123 He had a weak answer to why leftists shouldn't support non-Democrat candidates, and didn't want to further discredit himself.

The real answer is that it would compromise their relations in the Democratic Party, which is something he didn't want to say.

[Another1917 @Another1917]

@ryangrim The ability of elected officials to operate as a bloc and withhold votes to secure concessions is not going away under this system, so it's over/under on a new governing system.

A new speaker will be elected in months.