Then shouldn’t we be running openly as communists and not hiding and obscuring our positions? Shouldn’t we not be tying our reputation to people we know for a fact will betray us and make us look bad, if all we are after is visibility? Isn’t associating socialism with these kinds of chauvinists actively damaging to our “optics”?
This isn’t what you were saying the other day. The other day you were making lesser evil and harm reduction arguments to pressure people to vote for him. So which is it? Visibility or changing the system?
First, I don’t know why you’re carrying beef you have with me over into another thread, I don’t even know who you are. Second, that’s a massive mischaracterization of the argument I was making.
The arguments I made to vote for him were never based around “we can fix the system!” sentiment like you seem to be implying, nor did I say electoralism is the answer. The arguments were always based in materialism and how voting could have an impact on it.
Yes, openly running as socialist is an important step. That’s why I think DSA is worth being part of at this moment in time. The internal debate on electoralism is the main ideological split, with one major chunk believing DSA should continue working alongside the Dems, another not believing DSA should engage in electoralism at all ever, and the second major chunk believing DSA should become an outright socialist party, or at least be a socialist party incubator so that when that when the heightening contradictions within the org reach a boiling point, a nucleation point exists and the party apparatus is ready to hit the ground running.
The things Zohran says he will provide are good, it is good that the title of “socialist” will be very publicly tacked on to rent being frozen for 4 years, free busses, childcare, etc., and the visibility of that is important as a point of radicalization for people who will soon have those improvements in material conditions threatened when vocal non-socialists inevitably try to take them away. There is, unfortunately, very little positive connotation with the term socialist in the popular American public forum. Give the average person an improvement in their material conditions that is intrinsically tied to the label socialist, and they will fight for it. Suddenly it becomes a lot easier for people to identify as socialist and to bring them into your movement when you are more tangible to them than a scary buzzword they’ve been propagandized about for 100 years.
One sentence to tell me you don’t understand it, and that’s ok.
In reality, one sentence can summarize the entire thing: liberal electoralism heightens contradictions and can radicalize the working class who, whether you like it or not, pay attention to it.
Keep right on misunderstanding what I’m saying if you want, your false sense of superiority across conversations we’ve had is based entirely on a mischaracterization of why I’ve said what I have. While you piss and moan that I’m doing things wrong, I’m busy reaching the working class in one of the places they actually are paying attention to with the opportunity to help direct their attention to the ones that actually matter.
Supporting liberal entryism is when you don’t support liberal entryism and you can simultaneously clearly see the contradictions inherent to it being dealt with within an organization in such a way that an actual socialist entity is starting to grow out of.
Supporting liberal entryism is when you don’t support liberal entryism but can see the writing on the wall.
the problem I see with this is that every capitulation to imperialism also has the socialist label openly tacked onto it when you run unaccountable Democrats, and that runs the risk of just siphoning the US working class into a “chauvinist social democracy = socialism” form of crude, underdeveloped class consciousness that throws global south proles under the bus. it also runs the risk of alienating portions of the US working class who have been directly impacted by imperialism (e.g. many immigrant workers), not to mention potential international allies of any future American socialist movement.
without a firm line or party apparatus holding these candidates accountable it seems that this kind of thing can just run amok without real consequence. and I’m frankly not sure how interested many DSA rank-and-file are in reigning in these types of chauvinist brainworms and concessions.
I agree with your concern, and I think it’s important that those contradictions within DSA are sorted out by the active membership which are largely marxists ideologically. They certainly have been coming to fruition more and more frequently as the direction DSA breaks more with its liberal/socdem membership and leans into more principled socialist stances.
I think the lib/socdem DSA served an important role in its time and place as a visible org with enough active socialists that it showed those disillusioned or nascent members of the American left that there was a place to go post-Bernie if you were thinking about taking these things even marginally more seriously. Turns out a lot of people took them very seriously, and that’s what brought us to the points of contradiction within DSA that we see today. It continues to serve that purpose, but as affinity for socialism grows in America in combination with the critical mass of Marxists already within DSA, I’m confident some kind of actual socialist party/org can grow out of DSA if it doesn’t grow into one itself.
I like PSL and the work they do and have some good friends who are part of the org. I just find that I think a more fruitful org is poised to grow out of DSA than already exists in PSL for a few reasons. Both definitely have their unique problems internally, but I see DSA changing to address them in a much more dynamic way
The rent freeze is very realistic. I don’t see a way it wouldn’t happen unless literally everything we know about him and his history is a lie. It’s a 9 person board that votes on rent raises, and the current balance is 5-4 in favor of raising rent, and one board member is directly appointed by the mayor at will. So that would immediately be 5-4 in favor of a rent freeze.
The rest would require some state/federal funding, but NY State politics at least have establishment dems who may normally oppose funding those programs in hot water, especially coming off a Mamdani win and huge performance in NYC districts.
I don’t understand why you would think that way unless you just don’t understand how the Rent Guidelines Board works. The rent has been frozen multiple times in the past 10 years.
The Rent Guidelines Board has members that serve terms and are supposed to be appointed to represent particular interests (tenants, landlords, though there’s really nothing stopping you from just appointing all tenant-friendly board members to nominally represent the landlords), all of them are appointed by the mayor, and 8/9 serve set terms in their positions. The last RGB member serves directly at the behest of the mayor with no term, ie they are directly appointed by the mayor and a new mayor will replace that board member when they are elected. The current voting balance of the board is 5 in favor of raising rent, 4 in favor of freezing rent. 1 of those 5 in favor of raising rent is the appointee with no term limit serving the will of the Eric Adams administration, who will be replaced when Zohran presumably takes office in January, changing the voting balance immediately to 5-4 in favor of freezing rent.
To most people who don’t understand how this system works, the rent freeze seems to be the most unrealistic policy, when in reality it is easily the most likely to occur. Not only that, it has the ability to extend beyond a Zohran mayoralty when the other board members are replaced with Zohran appointees
Genuinely ignoring reality atp to think he wouldn’t. Fucking Eric Adams, notoriously the most corrupt to landlord class and foreign interests politician in recent NYC history, appointed 4 members who vote to freeze the rent lol.
I hear everybody’s many critiques of Zohran and I have the same critiques, but at some point this critique has become hatejerking with no basis in political reality lmfao
Oh how dare I try to point out your shifting hypocrisy. You are a mod and you act in bad faith, you push social chauvinism and when finally confronted with the fruits of your labor you shift and lie about what you were arguing for.
This is a small community it’s not that hard to remember names. It’s not some kind of super power
You brought up a mischaracterization of what I said in another post, one where I repeatedly told you that you could leave the post, disengage with me, or block me.
I didn’t bring up this argument with you, you did. I didn’t even remember you. I don’t know how you could possibly say I’m acting in bad faith. You’re allowed to disagree with me, but please stop being a debatebro and haranguing me about something you don’t care to understand or entertain.
Stop arguing with communists. Turn around. Go confront this chauvinist piece of shit that you supposedly know personally.
You personally vouched for him, he’s making you look like a fucking idiot. Are you going to do anything about it or just take out your anger with more left punching?
Again you are just completely mischaracterizing what I’ve said. Stop arguing with communists? YOU replied to me. I’m not punching left at all. I’m not even disagreeing with you about criticisms about Zohran, his campaign, or electoralism as a way to changing the system. You’ve already made your mind up that I disagree with you, there’s literally nothing I can do about that.
But you’ve mischaracterized what I said repeatedly, you obviously did not read what I replied to you on the other thread that has you so upset originally, and now you have forced that engagement to continue here. It is impossible to discuss these things with you when you clearly weren’t willing to engage with me civilly, even after I’ve politely asked you to leave me alone, block me, or disengage with me on a separate post. I’ve never had this problem with literally anybody else. You not having the same outlook, methods, or predictions I do does not mean I’m acting in bad faith, lying, or being chauvinist.
Stop haranguing me, leave me alone. Block me or disengage with me.
You have a lot more patience than I do, a week ban for this sort of toxic debatebro behaviour is a lot more lenient than what I would done. I suppose that’s why I’m not a mod, I would escalate things way too quickly. Hopefully they chill out a little bit, they do have some interesting ideas sometimes, when they’re not just being super combative for no reason.
I didn’t ban them, and I’d never do that about something I’m personally involved with. Everybody has to go through the proper channels and follow the same rules.
I don’t mind a disagreement with anybody, but we had ours already, discussed it thoroughly, didn’t see eye to eye, and I requested disengagement and gave the person multiple opportunities both on that post and this one to leave me alone. It’s time to move on after that. We can’t endlessly be personally begrudging other users over our disagreements.
My understanding was the disengage rule didn’t apply if you were using it in a way that would give you the last word in an argument. Your exact phrasing was “you can simply disengage.” If you keep “offering” rather than asking for disengagement, you won’t get it.
Oh right, I forgot mods don’t ban people for issues they’re directly a part of, that’s pretty obvious that you wouldn’t do that.
Yeah, I was acting in response not to their disagreement with you (that’s normal and fine) but their debatebro “refusing to even consider your argument and just demanding you bend the knee” kind of smugness. I really don’t want to see that sort of attitude develop around here, it would turn this place into just another smug lemmy.world, but with a vague “leftist” coat of paint.
The right answer was: Yeah I guess you were right about Democratic Party entryism and its risks. I was wrong to vouch for Mamdani. I will try to get ahold of him to let him know what a serious breach this is.
Then shouldn’t we be running openly as communists and not hiding and obscuring our positions? Shouldn’t we not be tying our reputation to people we know for a fact will betray us and make us look bad, if all we are after is visibility? Isn’t associating socialism with these kinds of chauvinists actively damaging to our “optics”?
This isn’t what you were saying the other day. The other day you were making lesser evil and harm reduction arguments to pressure people to vote for him. So which is it? Visibility or changing the system?
First, I don’t know why you’re carrying beef you have with me over into another thread, I don’t even know who you are. Second, that’s a massive mischaracterization of the argument I was making.
The arguments I made to vote for him were never based around “we can fix the system!” sentiment like you seem to be implying, nor did I say electoralism is the answer. The arguments were always based in materialism and how voting could have an impact on it.
Yes, openly running as socialist is an important step. That’s why I think DSA is worth being part of at this moment in time. The internal debate on electoralism is the main ideological split, with one major chunk believing DSA should continue working alongside the Dems, another not believing DSA should engage in electoralism at all ever, and the second major chunk believing DSA should become an outright socialist party, or at least be a socialist party incubator so that when that when the heightening contradictions within the org reach a boiling point, a nucleation point exists and the party apparatus is ready to hit the ground running.
The things Zohran says he will provide are good, it is good that the title of “socialist” will be very publicly tacked on to rent being frozen for 4 years, free busses, childcare, etc., and the visibility of that is important as a point of radicalization for people who will soon have those improvements in material conditions threatened when vocal non-socialists inevitably try to take them away. There is, unfortunately, very little positive connotation with the term socialist in the popular American public forum. Give the average person an improvement in their material conditions that is intrinsically tied to the label socialist, and they will fight for it. Suddenly it becomes a lot easier for people to identify as socialist and to bring them into your movement when you are more tangible to them than a scary buzzword they’ve been propagandized about for 100 years.
Many paragraphs to endorse liberal electoralism
One sentence to tell me you don’t understand it, and that’s ok.
In reality, one sentence can summarize the entire thing: liberal electoralism heightens contradictions and can radicalize the working class who, whether you like it or not, pay attention to it.
Keep right on misunderstanding what I’m saying if you want, your false sense of superiority across conversations we’ve had is based entirely on a mischaracterization of why I’ve said what I have. While you piss and moan that I’m doing things wrong, I’m busy reaching the working class in one of the places they actually are paying attention to with the opportunity to help direct their attention to the ones that actually matter.
You should just admit you support liberal entryism then.
Supporting liberal entryism is when you don’t support liberal entryism and you can simultaneously clearly see the contradictions inherent to it being dealt with within an organization in such a way that an actual socialist entity is starting to grow out of.
Supporting liberal entryism is when you don’t support liberal entryism but can see the writing on the wall.
the problem I see with this is that every capitulation to imperialism also has the socialist label openly tacked onto it when you run unaccountable Democrats, and that runs the risk of just siphoning the US working class into a “chauvinist social democracy = socialism” form of crude, underdeveloped class consciousness that throws global south proles under the bus. it also runs the risk of alienating portions of the US working class who have been directly impacted by imperialism (e.g. many immigrant workers), not to mention potential international allies of any future American socialist movement.
without a firm line or party apparatus holding these candidates accountable it seems that this kind of thing can just run amok without real consequence. and I’m frankly not sure how interested many DSA rank-and-file are in reigning in these types of chauvinist brainworms and concessions.
I agree with your concern, and I think it’s important that those contradictions within DSA are sorted out by the active membership which are largely marxists ideologically. They certainly have been coming to fruition more and more frequently as the direction DSA breaks more with its liberal/socdem membership and leans into more principled socialist stances.
I think the lib/socdem DSA served an important role in its time and place as a visible org with enough active socialists that it showed those disillusioned or nascent members of the American left that there was a place to go post-Bernie if you were thinking about taking these things even marginally more seriously. Turns out a lot of people took them very seriously, and that’s what brought us to the points of contradiction within DSA that we see today. It continues to serve that purpose, but as affinity for socialism grows in America in combination with the critical mass of Marxists already within DSA, I’m confident some kind of actual socialist party/org can grow out of DSA if it doesn’t grow into one itself.
Or you could all just leave the DSA right now and join an actual socialist party like the PSL.
I like PSL and the work they do and have some good friends who are part of the org. I just find that I think a more fruitful org is poised to grow out of DSA than already exists in PSL for a few reasons. Both definitely have their unique problems internally, but I see DSA changing to address them in a much more dynamic way
What is this even depicting?
inb4 he wins and doesn’t do any of that
The rent freeze is very realistic. I don’t see a way it wouldn’t happen unless literally everything we know about him and his history is a lie. It’s a 9 person board that votes on rent raises, and the current balance is 5-4 in favor of raising rent, and one board member is directly appointed by the mayor at will. So that would immediately be 5-4 in favor of a rent freeze.
The rest would require some state/federal funding, but NY State politics at least have establishment dems who may normally oppose funding those programs in hot water, especially coming off a Mamdani win and huge performance in NYC districts.
Complete nonsense, capital has too much control for this to be true.
I don’t understand why you would think that way unless you just don’t understand how the Rent Guidelines Board works. The rent has been frozen multiple times in the past 10 years.
The Rent Guidelines Board has members that serve terms and are supposed to be appointed to represent particular interests (tenants, landlords, though there’s really nothing stopping you from just appointing all tenant-friendly board members to nominally represent the landlords), all of them are appointed by the mayor, and 8/9 serve set terms in their positions. The last RGB member serves directly at the behest of the mayor with no term, ie they are directly appointed by the mayor and a new mayor will replace that board member when they are elected. The current voting balance of the board is 5 in favor of raising rent, 4 in favor of freezing rent. 1 of those 5 in favor of raising rent is the appointee with no term limit serving the will of the Eric Adams administration, who will be replaced when Zohran presumably takes office in January, changing the voting balance immediately to 5-4 in favor of freezing rent.
To most people who don’t understand how this system works, the rent freeze seems to be the most unrealistic policy, when in reality it is easily the most likely to occur. Not only that, it has the ability to extend beyond a Zohran mayoralty when the other board members are replaced with Zohran appointees
If you really think the Zionist shitlord is going to appoint a tenant friendly group I don’t know what to tell you.
Genuinely ignoring reality atp to think he wouldn’t. Fucking Eric Adams, notoriously the most corrupt to landlord class and foreign interests politician in recent NYC history, appointed 4 members who vote to freeze the rent lol.
I hear everybody’s many critiques of Zohran and I have the same critiques, but at some point this critique has become hatejerking with no basis in political reality lmfao
I promise I will apologize if I turn out to be wrong but I won’t be.
Oh how dare I try to point out your shifting hypocrisy. You are a mod and you act in bad faith, you push social chauvinism and when finally confronted with the fruits of your labor you shift and lie about what you were arguing for.
This is a small community it’s not that hard to remember names. It’s not some kind of super power
Voting for democrats materialistly
You brought up a mischaracterization of what I said in another post, one where I repeatedly told you that you could leave the post, disengage with me, or block me.
I didn’t bring up this argument with you, you did. I didn’t even remember you. I don’t know how you could possibly say I’m acting in bad faith. You’re allowed to disagree with me, but please stop being a debatebro and haranguing me about something you don’t care to understand or entertain.
Stop arguing with communists. Turn around. Go confront this chauvinist piece of shit that you supposedly know personally.
You personally vouched for him, he’s making you look like a fucking idiot. Are you going to do anything about it or just take out your anger with more left punching?
Again you are just completely mischaracterizing what I’ve said. Stop arguing with communists? YOU replied to me. I’m not punching left at all. I’m not even disagreeing with you about criticisms about Zohran, his campaign, or electoralism as a way to changing the system. You’ve already made your mind up that I disagree with you, there’s literally nothing I can do about that.
But you’ve mischaracterized what I said repeatedly, you obviously did not read what I replied to you on the other thread that has you so upset originally, and now you have forced that engagement to continue here. It is impossible to discuss these things with you when you clearly weren’t willing to engage with me civilly, even after I’ve politely asked you to leave me alone, block me, or disengage with me on a separate post. I’ve never had this problem with literally anybody else. You not having the same outlook, methods, or predictions I do does not mean I’m acting in bad faith, lying, or being chauvinist.
Stop haranguing me, leave me alone. Block me or disengage with me.
You have a lot more patience than I do, a week ban for this sort of toxic debatebro behaviour is a lot more lenient than what I would done. I suppose that’s why I’m not a mod, I would escalate things way too quickly. Hopefully they chill out a little bit, they do have some interesting ideas sometimes, when they’re not just being super combative for no reason.
Instead of a bad faith accusation of debatebro behavior you could just say you’re fine with liberalism
Tone policing anti imperialists, a favorite pastime on this site apparently
I didn’t ban them, and I’d never do that about something I’m personally involved with. Everybody has to go through the proper channels and follow the same rules.
I don’t mind a disagreement with anybody, but we had ours already, discussed it thoroughly, didn’t see eye to eye, and I requested disengagement and gave the person multiple opportunities both on that post and this one to leave me alone. It’s time to move on after that. We can’t endlessly be personally begrudging other users over our disagreements.
My understanding was the disengage rule didn’t apply if you were using it in a way that would give you the last word in an argument. Your exact phrasing was “you can simply disengage.” If you keep “offering” rather than asking for disengagement, you won’t get it.
Oh right, I forgot mods don’t ban people for issues they’re directly a part of, that’s pretty obvious that you wouldn’t do that.
Yeah, I was acting in response not to their disagreement with you (that’s normal and fine) but their debatebro “refusing to even consider your argument and just demanding you bend the knee” kind of smugness. I really don’t want to see that sort of attitude develop around here, it would turn this place into just another smug lemmy.world, but with a vague “leftist” coat of paint.
Brrrntt. Wrong answer.
The right answer was: Yeah I guess you were right about Democratic Party entryism and its risks. I was wrong to vouch for Mamdani. I will try to get ahold of him to let him know what a serious breach this is.
Banned4Truth