This is from the wikipedia article about Michael Harrington, generally considered to be the DSA’s founder. The libs were right: socialism is (apparently) when you commit genocide.
Edit: lol I did not think I would be starting a thread with a million replies but here we go I guess.
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
The Harrington tendency is dead in DSA, we literally passed an anti-zionist resolution at convention last year, members can be expelled for supporting Zionism.
Apparently not if these members are elected officials.
This is an active debate in DSA. DSA does not have any way of enforcing party discipline on our electeds. The nature of the NYC chapter, itself composed of many qualitatively differing large branches, is the largest, most active and electorally successful branch in the country, and differs qualitatively from the national org.
But it also has to be acknowledged that winning an executive office brings an immense amount of baggage and contradictions. Mamdani did not run as a pure propaganda candidate, and wants to actually govern. Which means he inherited a governance apparatus that has, for years, been ground zero for an immense amount of corruption and personal enrichment. DSA does not have control of the office of NYC mayor, and Mamdani's win has attracted tens of thousands of new members. He has vocally and practically opposed Zionism in many ways, and if the people who he appoints to this or that position do not, then unless they are members of DSA, we can't really do much about it, at this juncture.
The anti-zionism resolution passed but was still very controversial, I had to have many difficult conversations with members after convention explaining why we voted for it. I think you are correct to be critical, and there are parts of DSA that are working to improve our ability to enforce discipline on electeds. National DSA refused to endorse AOC, for example, and are vocal in opposition to her pragmatism toward support for Israel. The National leadership criticizes Mamdani when he makes critical mistakes like you are pointing out. But because you can only think about things abstractly, you can't understand what's actually going on, what forces are at work, and what is being done within the org, as well as Mamdani's own circle, to resolve the concrete contradictions.
This baby simple formula of Mamdani bad = DSA bad is pure ultraleft idealism. You're arm-chairing during the most dynamic moment in the socialist movement in 80+ years. You need to understand that to love DSA is an act of trying to understand it in order to change it; rather than putting it in a box and slapping a label on it like some idealist.
“Abstractly” is when the mayor keeps on a zionist police chief, actively enables the dispossession of Palestinian land, and supports a candidate who invested hundreds of millions of dollars of public pension money in genocide. Who forced Mamdani to do these things? What pushback has come from the DSA? Yes, clearly I am the one thinking abstractly here. Pragmatism is when you keep the death machine well oiled with the blood of innocent people.