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
Look, you are rightly upset about the horrors that exist in the world. You are rightly upset about your criticisms of Mamdani. You are rightly skeptical of DSA. But none of that transforms the org into something that it just isn't. You've moved the goal posts from a criticism of DSA on the basis of our founder, whose influence has been rendered irrelevant and wrong; to a criticism of Mamdani. In order to be coherent you should try to be consistent.
What I mean by you're thinking too abstractly and idealistically, is the actual work that the members engage in, and what those members have brought back to their chapters, committees, and in some cases leadership positions, is what defines the nature of DSA. And the reality of what that work is and how it has developed, does not align with your criticisms of it.
If you joined DSA, you would fit in with a large and growing body of members. Like clearly we weren't always anti Zionist, clearly we still have a ways to go, but it has changed and is continuing to change. What is your theory of change? It seems like you don't have one, you have a sectarian idea of political absolutism and I'm sure you could find some left opportunist sect that would tell you everything you want to hear as long as your dues meet the expectation.
DSA isn't one thing, it hasn't been for a long time. We have ultra sectarians in DSA! We also have reformists, and moderate tendencies, and how those dynamics develop never ceases to yield frustration, or inspire awe. But your criticisms do not make DSA something that it isn't. You don't understand the org, you don't want to understand the org, and that's your prerogative. But if you don't understand how these horrors divide us, if you're not willing to make any compromises with reality, then I don't know what to tell you.
Having a theory of change is not pragmatism, and DSA's theory of change is a site of struggle. So its different than pragmatism. Its always breathtaking how outsiders act like their single criticism is stating some final checkmate; when usually their criticism is alive and playing out inside the org, from a dozen different directions. Meanwhile you just sound like a crank. You aren't wrong! But your attitude and approach is out of sync with the practical process of change.