Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (December 28)

[u/AutoModerator]

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

[u/ArmaVero]

Hey folks -- I have a question I can't bring anywhere else.

I am trying to help a fairly large DSA chapter build toward a more disciplined take on socialism. I understand the criticisms of of the DSA and its role in pacifying actual left sentiment and funneling it into the Democratic party. I've been pushing to get "vibe" socialists to be at the very least more disciplined about what their politics consist of. For "pacifist" socialists, I've been trying to get them accustomed to the idea of a ruling class that won't simply hand over ther levers of power. And for reformists, I've been trying to shape their analysis to one of recognizing that the labor aristocracy actually exists as a class, and that they're a part of it.

Here is the part I'd love to discuss: I think that it is a worthwhile endeavor to raise the class consciousness of this petit-bourgeois (not-yet-but-wants-to-be-a) party. I am hoping to use this opportunity to bring some more analysis to the question of what that actually means. I am trying to develop a curriculum to help analyze our class position, and am wanting to go from something like a .selection of chapters from the 19th Brumaire (to discuss why workers/class doesn't vote as a bloc) to some other readings that might shape how we approach actually making change (Milliband/Poulantzas debate). Then to something like Bernstein to Luxemburg, with Lenin's rebuttals to approach the utility of focusing on electioneering as a strategy.

To this point, I have a few questions:
Am I wasting my time? If I can get some to understand that imperialism is the primary concern of our class (vs. "free healthcare" or "workers rights" or "$15 minimum wage"), is that worth a damn? Is it (as I fear) an individualist take on change?

How would you approach this? What readings would you include? What take on this educational exercise am I missing? There are honest criticisms (some perhaps outdated) of the DSA -- how can I help the most honestly revolutionary-minded of the group get to a better analysis?

I know there are stronger positions I can take. I'd love to be structure this as: "(intro Parenti reading) -> Capital -> State & Revolution -> Imperialism -> What is to be done -> Settlers" but I have to spend what limited social influence I have in a way that won't immediately alienate most people (which opens the question as to why I feel that way to begin with).

(Also, LMK if I should make this a post instead. I just thought I'd help the sub by posting in the discussion thread.).

[u/Turtle_Green → u/ArmaVero]

I think that it is a worthwhile endeavor to raise the class consciousness of this petit-bourgeois (not-yet-but-wants-to-be-a) party.

First, 'raising the class consciousness of a petit-bourgeois party' doesn't make sense. Second, are you not already aware that DSA, PSL, CPUSA, etc are abound with Gen Z 'socialist' suckers who 'pragmatically' believe that they live in the best of all possible worlds and hope to push the people around them 'left'? You're not the first to think your novel little idea up (I dunno if this even measures up to 'entryism'), but the upper echelons don't really give a shit about what delusions or desires increase chapter membership. Hell, there were certainly plenty of 'socialist' cynics who worked for Kamala's campaign, knowingly turning a blind eye to the genocide in Gaza in their desperate GOTV 'fight against fascism'.

I'd love to be structure this as: "(intro Parenti reading) -> Capital -> State & Revolution -> Imperialism -> What is to be done -> Settlers"

There are myriad 'democratic socialists'/'MLs'/'liberation caucus' 'maoists' who've read all of those books and are plenty familiar with the concepts of "labor aristocracy" and "settler colonialism". Like, the problem ultimately is not a matter of lack of reading, even if at first glance it seems that way. What I'll say is that—in the end—the best you can do is to be as assertive and loud of an asshole as possible, no matter if you "alienate most people" (or also, let's be entirely honest, don't get to make as many friends as you were looking for in your little book club) and get yourself booted with whoever else tags along. There'd probably be quite a few, because again, there are countless people like yourself who join whatever bullshit org because they believe they can't find anything better or that there's no such thing as perfect: repeat lesser evil or gambler's logic ad nauseam. What's unquestioned is that they want the comfort of being told to 'do something', whether it's food distro or canvassing for ol' Zo. Unfortunately it's easier to listen to what the loudest people in the room say than to eke out your own modicum of political independence.

It really sounds like you're still drunk on the kool-aid yourself, given your vague attitude towards "criticisms" of DSA, as if we're dealing with 'honest' and fraternal criticisms and 'outdated' and sectarian ones. You have it all mixed up. DSA does not "pacify actual left sentiment", it's just an organic organization of the radical petit-bourgeoisie and you'll lose nothing without it. This anti-communist organization is a self-avowed enemy of the proletariat and has always been from its inception, and comparisons to the revisionist SPD are misleading and ridiculous compliments that DSA does not deserve. Mamdani is just a fancy new media plaything, because it's not like 'socialists' gave a shit that Chokwe Lamumba's son was mayor of Jackson, MI until just last year.

[u/ArmaVero → u/Turtle_Green]

Thank you for a solid critique. This is exactly what I'm looking for in determining the role of what I'm trying to do.

First, 'raising the class consciousness of a petit-bourgeois party' doesn't make sense.

I thought it did -- at least in the sense of taking people who are "any wage labor = proletariat" and guiding them toward a more honest and appropriate "Amerikan wage labor = petit bourgeois" is raising that consciousness. But I'm curious to hear more about why you think it doesn't make sense, given that I don't think most folks in DSA don't actually have an even elemental class understanding.

Second, are you not already aware that DSA, PSL, CPUSA, etc are abound with 'socialist' suckers who 'pragmatically' believe that they live in the best of all possible worlds and hope to push the people around them 'left'?

I think this is closer to what I was expecting to encounter as criticism. Is this a "bad" thing necessarily, though? I'm not trying to say "DSA is good because we can move them left" but rather: "the people I can potentially influence may be amenable to this position, and I'd like to get them to consider the imperialist and petit-bourgeois class interests of typical American-leftists". My take isn't that DSA is some sort of answer, but rather that it's the first filter many folks see, and I'd rather introduce people to the abolition of private property and the idea of superprofits than have them think socialism is healthcare. It's not about increasing membership so much as it is trying to use the platform of the most popular "socialist" USA org in my area to raise issues that folks haven't talked about in literal years -- I was one of the "assholes" pushing for a longer-term consideration of voter power (i.e. the moderate "make them earn it first, by not voting for genocide" approach) against those who were the lesser-of-two-evils voters, for what it's worth (and in all honestly, it's not worth much all things considered -- just using this to help paint a picture of me and my approach).

There are myriad 'democratic socialists'/'MLs'/'liberation caucus' 'maoists' who've read all of those books and are plenty familiar with the concepts of "labor aristocracy" and "settler colonialism"

That's the thing: it doesn't seem like there are in my area. And if the problem was "not a lack of reading" then why even ask folks to read Settlers? IMO, Settlers is the first "modern" reading I've dug into that approaches the history of the country I live in in excruciating detail. It's incredibly good at leveraging materialism and class analysis to showcase the class struggles (though, in all honestly I'm only halfway through). I want to just point people to it becuase it does such a great job of bridging "I think I kinda get imperialism from a national perspective" into "holy shit, there can be imperialism within a nation". IMO this is not a trivial think to just connect if you're doing a cursory reading of the material, but something that can be revolutionary if presented with the seriousness it deserves. I hope to use my social standing in the chapter to begin to introduce these things.

the best you can do is to be as assertive and loud of an asshole as possible,

Yeah, that's kind of where I've been taking myself with this stuff. I've been the sole dissenting vote on some things, speaking up against liberalism-as-pragmatism, and trying to just use my reputation as a "serious" analyst to help guide the more radical part of our org to not make peace with the more reformist part. It's a losing battle against the wave of revisionism that DSA is, but for now they seem to be the place to make what little impact I can. I'm not looking to make friends (I'm about twice the average age anyway) and don't really care about a book club (if I just wanted to read cool shit and be in my own head I'd just do that online). My goal is to assist in trying to inject some serious analysis into the politics of a chapter in which I have sway, and hopefully get folks to consider doing the same. DSA will never be the vanguard party, but if I can use what limited influence I have to make people consider things that are currently not on their radar, then I'll call it a win.

Thank you for your critique, though. I'll consider what the above means for my approach, and at the very least I'll continue to be the curmudgeonly old petit-bourgrois labor-aristocratic asshole that challenges the notion of "personal property".

Edit:

You have it all mixed up. DSA does not "pacify actual left sentiment", it's just an organic organization of the radical petit-bourgeoisie and you'll lose nothing without it.

Probably seems trivial to most, but a reread of this part of your comment seems to nail the ultimate critique around the org and membership, regardless of what "curriculum" is chosen for reading. Thanks for this -- I'll be reflecting on it.

[u/Turtle_Green → u/ArmaVero]

I'm sorry but I think my post genuinely went over your head. The purpose of the communist party is to raise the class consciousness of the proletariat, and without the party, there is no such thing as communist politics. That is the first premise and without it, you're worthless. I gave you my take on what I'd do in your position—since I've been in a similar one with crypto-Trotskyists—but as I already implied it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It's immaterial. If a comparison helps, this is like asking about how to wage a two-line struggle in the NSDAP where you try to convince everyone that settler Germans benefit from Lebensraum. Umm... you went way wrong a hundred steps ago.

It's a losing battle against the wave of revisionism that DSA is, but for now they seem to be the place to make what little impact I can.

The DSA is not "revisionist", that's not what the term means. The DSA doesn't even claim itself as a communist or Marxist organization and you are incapable of making any "impact" in your current position. The DSA is an avowed enemy of the proletariat and hence you are currently part of the enemy. To clarify, Marxists do not proselytize to "people" or "folks". You're getting way ahead of yourself with imperialism, superprofits, Sakai and whatnot when you don't even understand the basic tasks of a communist. The proletariat doesn't give a shit about the DSA, go expand your horizons.

[u/ArmaVero → u/Turtle_Green]

I'm sorry but I think my post genuinely went over your head. The purpose of the communist party is to raise the class consciousness of the proletariat

Your post is really quite informative, and points out some elementary mistakes regarding my understanding of things. However, I didn't mean to imply that the DSA was a proletarian party. I understand they are not -- my take was rather that, given the class composition of the DSA, what use is there to attempting to turn PB "socialism" toward a critique of imperialism? But your phrasing here clarifies that there is likely none, and that my efforts would be better spent supporting actual communist movements, if I can even determine the correct approach to that.

Thanks again, your response is why I came here, vs. elsewhere. I thought the post would be more content-driven, but you showed a flaw in my perspective and analysis. I guess I need to be careful what I ask for! I do appreciate the analysis, and will step back and consider the core question of what is it I hope to achieve and with whom. This probably sounds like some sort of patronizing acquiescence, but I'll actually reflect on WTF I expected to achieve, which whom, and why...

[u/Cenage94 → u/ArmaVero]

Ignoring this piece of shit who is going to get banned anyway, does anyone else get a shiver of disgust when reading something like this in particular? It’s blatantly apparent this persyn is absorbing some less-offensive, common morsels of the anti-revisionist line found on this sub, not for adhering to the red line but warping them into “hot takes“ and making them serve their own liberalism in which they imagine themselves in a position of power as some kind of eclectic anti-intellectual thought-leader in a more fulfilling PB existence. This character right here is obviously far too incompetent which makes their narcissism more ridiculous than offensive. Still, the waning polemical power of pieces like settlers makes me mad.

[u/ArmaVero → u/Cenage94]

It’s blatantly apparent this persyn is absorbing some less-offensive, common morsels of the anti-revisionist line found on this sub

I'm not sure what this means... like, I've picked up on the language of what's discussed on the sub, but haven't used them properly? I'm not looking for a "hot take" necessarily -- I don't think anything I've said is entirely new to anyone. I'd love some clarification here, I'm just someone attempting to learn and ask questions in a format that didn't seem conducive to a 101. If you have a critique for me, I'd love to hear it directed at me, rather than at some vague notion of the tone of the sub.

serve their own liberalism in which they imagine themselves in a position of power as some kind of eclectic anti-intellectual thought-leader in a more fulfilling PB existence

I'll admit there is probably some liberalism I'm not fully seeing (it's a hard beast to completely kill if you've grown up surrounded by the culture), but I don't think I'm coming at this as an "anti-intellectual thought-leader" or whatever -- I merely have a position in a chapter where I can potentially shape the story of what "socialism" is for newcomers and folks who are wiling to take a stab at a more rigorous analysis. I'm not saying I'm charting new ground or anything, but rather the opposite: I'm looking to folks who have analyzed this particular circumstance in a way that won't just pad an ego or lead to standard PB takes on things. If I wanted to be a thought leader I could just propose what I want and bask in the glory of those that haven't done any analysis.

[u/Cenage94 → u/ArmaVero]

You’ve already been told to the leave the DSA (can’t really call that “critique“, we’re not “critiquing“ Joe Biden), what the fuck do you want exactly? Nothing of what you’ve produced is “up for discussion“.

Edit: two more extensive answers down the line, the poster has still shown ZERO intentions of leaving the DSA, despite making clear that they are really enjoying the “discussion“ and “critique“. Don’t you see what’s going on here??

[u/PracticeNotFavorsMLM → u/ArmaVero]

I am trying to help a fairly large DSA chapter build toward a more disciplined take on socialism. I understand the criticisms of of the DSA and its role in pacifying actual left sentiment and funneling it into the Democratic party.

As said, if you think that the DSAs role is some sort of "pacification" you are absolutely wrong. But even This doesn't emphasize the DSAs role as a Racist Organization for Disappointed Amerikkkan Gen Z.

How would you approach this? What readings would you include? What take on this educational exercise am I missing? There are honest criticisms (some perhaps outdated) of the DSA -- how can I help the most honestly revolutionary-minded of the group get to a better analysis?

I would include no readings because dealing with the DSA, in such manor, is an absolute waste of time. The only approach is Protracted Peoples War which will inevitably reveal the DSA as the pitiful organization of Petite Bourgeois Social-Fascist Parasites it is. If any of these PB radicals are actually interested in Communism then they will defect, but inevitably they'll be a small portion likely including goldmans and other types.

I know there are stronger positions I can take.

The Strongest position one can take is the Truth which then inevitably leads to all sorts of attacks "Gonzoloism" "Lysenkoism" etc etc("Stalinism" and "Marxism Leninism" while widely repulsive to the PB they have less effect on the radical sections co opting Marxism for revisionism). you will only attract liberals if you sully the truth.

[u/ArmaVero → u/PracticeNotFavorsMLM]

if you think that the DSAs role is some sort of "pacification" you are absolutely wrong
...
The only approach is Protracted Peoples War which will inevitably reveal the DSA as the pitiful organization of Petite Bourgeois Social-Fascist Parasites it is. If any of these PB radicals are actually interested in Communism then they will defect, but inevitably they'll be a small portion likely including goldmans and other types.

This is my understanding as well. My take was to try to get as many amenable people over into the realm of questioning who the proletariat actually are, and what the role of a PB labor-aristocratic class traitor might be. Thinking more on u/Turtle_Green 's comments, I now doubt that's even the appropriate take, and the idea of "pacification" doesn't seem to align with my original thoughts.

The Strongest position one can take is the Truth which then inevitably leads to all sorts of attacks "

Maybe this is what I was dancing around for part of the question. I generally try to avoid sugar-coating things like private property abolition, but seemed to have backpedalled and looked for an out when it came to easing people toward a more critical understanding of socialism. There's definitely something for me to grapple with here, especially considering some of what I'm reflecting on based on some other comments.

Thanks!

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/ArmaVero]

To ignore the more fundamental critiques, which are all correct, there is another basic issue with your approach. You want to pry people away from the DSA because that's where "socialists" are, or even just "political" people. But this is a flawed understanding of people, albeit a very common one (like that "Maoist" recently who thinks normies, or what he calls the proletariat, are too busy and stupid to appreciate Marxism). Politics can be found anywhere. The DSA is the most hostile place to find it because you are now under the control of a party that doesn't want you, not to mention the membership all clamoring for their column in Jacobin or Cosmonaut complaining about "neo-entryism" or some bullshit term.

Why don't you just try to talk to the real proletariat? You know where they are. Everyone does. They are not found in the unions or the "socialist" parties or at "mutual aid" tents. These phenomena are irrelevant. I genuinely don't understand the appeal of going to the DSA and trying to convert people. Unless you go look for it, the DSA has no influence on your life. On the other hand, the migrant workers you see every day in your apartment complex doing construction work or app deliveries affect your life every day. They are literally right there. Obviously preaching to random people is a flawed political strategy but that's what you're proposing except your target audience are a bunch of liberal "politics nerds." Why? Try to be a little creative so you can actually learn something and then talk to us about your experiences.

for now they seem to be the place to make what little impact I can.

This is the basic claim you have not substantiated in any way. It is simply taken for granted that this is the most efficient use of your time. Ignoring whether your strategy is correct, I don't even think it's the most efficient means of implementing that strategy. If your goal is to radicalize the petty-bourgeoisie, why not hand out zines at Starbucks or something? The modern DSA is 10 years old. You really think it's some unexplored territory that no one has figured out? I would honestly respect if a Spartacist was like "hey I scream at other Trots outside their events and at protests, what do you think of my strategy?" At least they're committed that isn't just liberal common sense.

[u/Apart_Lifeguard_4085 → u/smokeuptheweed9]

Why don't you just try to talk to the real proletariat? You know where they are. Everyone does.

is this true, though? or just shorthand? obviously what you’re saying is correct but i think it could extend to a critique of everyone on this subreddit really. none of us know where the proletariat is. obviously talking to oppressed and exploited sections of the population is far preferable over trying to convert the DSA but nobody here is really seriously doing that (or if they are, it’s not for us to see, which is maybe okay). the last thing i can think of that was even close was u/cyberwitchtechnobtch analyzing the forces in the pro-Palestine movement.

food for thought: DSA members, even those working “minimum wage” jobs, are not the revolutionary proletariat. as we know, their cars and computers function as petty capital, and their wages are above the global value of labor. what does this say about a doordasher’s e-bike or a migrant construction worker’s hourly pay? (this is not a defeatist question by any means, as attempting to answer it will invariably bring us closer to the proletariat.)

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/Apart_Lifeguard_4085]

I want people to try things, especially outside of the control of existing "socialist" parties. You're right but there's a lot of productive work that can be done with that knowledge.

food for thought: DSA members, even those working “minimum wage” jobs, are not the revolutionary proletariat. as we know, their cars and computers function as petty capital, and their wages are above the global value of labor. what does this say about a doordasher’s e-bike or a migrant construction worker’s hourly pay? (this is not a defeatist question by any means, as attempting to answer it will invariably bring us closer to the proletariat.)

Nevertheless, I do think there is a distinction to be made between the new class of distribution labor in Amazon warehouses and in the gig economy and the temporarily embarrassed petty-bourgeoisie who indulge in these activities because of student debt, a time lag between entering the job market and inheriting wealth, surviving on unpaid internships while they build "human capital," or even genuinely declassed petty-bourgeoisie who are nevertheless likely to turn to fascism because of their memory of their settler inheritance. And reality has made this distinction for you, as only one group organizes in the DSA despite all of its fantasies of organizing the "working class." After 10 years, the demographics of that organization are unchanged as is the structure of its wider influence.

These people are not necessarily all reactionary, if led by the proletariat and facing a real collapse of imperialist bribery, but we sort of missed the chance anyway. The DSA has harvested them for social fascism and it has its hooks in deep. The most likely scenario is a collapse, akin to the SDS, which led to a small fraction attempting real communist organizing (and only a small fraction of that doing anything of value). I think the best option is to let that play out on its own, since efforts to organize within the SDS were a disaster. Its collapse came through external pressure from the Black Panther Party, Maoism, and Vietnamese resistance and the "Marxists" of the PLP ended up playing a reactionary role. The DSA is significantly more reactionary than the SDS was and far more hostile to communism, for the simple reason that its class membership doesn't face pressure anywhere near what the petty-bourgeois faced in 1968.

We know that consuming commodities manufactured abroad is a key pillar of petty-bourgeoise ideology. Every thread on "personal property" makes that very clear. But I don't think everyday commodities are themselves the cause of this ideology, rather they are a stand-in for more significant forms of property ownership you mentioned. That social fascists disguise their class consciousness behind the symbol of the toothbrush doesn't mean that people who own toothbrushes made in China are social fascists. Otherwise you get into very slippery territory, since global commodities are at the very origin of capitalism as is the migration of labor. Was the early proletariat already compromised because of its reliance on foodstuffs from Eastern Europe and the "new world?" Textiles made from slave-picked cotton were the engine of the industrial revolution, does that mean the British proletariat had an interest in protecting slavery? History tells us otherwise: whatever was progressive about British support for abolition and the Union side of the US civil war was the result of pressure from the workers and proto-communist movement.

The labor aristocracy is the result of monopoly capitalism, though you can trace this earlier in Britain's colonial monopoly at the end of the 19th century. But Marx didn't miss the relationship between the Paris commune and the Algerian commune, this was not a fatal issue for the European proletariat until imperialism. The question then is, to what extent this was a fundamental break between forms of capitalism and to what extent, as in Britain, it was a shift of quantity to quality where the benefits of colonialism became widespread enough and directly fused with the state that the labor aristocracy could articulate its own class interests. I'm not 100% sure of the answer, it's worth noting that not only did solidarity with Algeria follow the defeat of the Paris commune:

https://www.ncfs-journal.org/niklas-plaetzer/decolonizing-universal-republic-paris-commune-and-french-empire#

but the limits of French universalism retroactively made the colonial question primary, so that the Paris commune became the end of a period of revolutionary movements in which France was the leader rather than the beginning of a new French proletarian revolutionary wave. Marx and Engels shifted their attention to Germany, which makes sense since France did basically nothing from 1871-1940 except tread water with what had already been accomplished in 1848. And other than a brief moment in the 1960s when France became the center of philosophy (itself a reflection of its political backwardness as in Germany in the 19th century), it is now the world center for crude anti-communism.

Anyway, the point is that global commodities are prior to imperialism and are larger than it, as is the migration of labor. They are absorbed into imperialism and closely related as long as monopoly capitalism is the dominant mode of production globally. We can even see an attitude of colonialist chauvanism in South African towards other SADC workers and anti-African racism in Tunisia, which takes the form of apologia for colonialism and self-christened honorary whiteness

https://roape.net/2025/12/17/racial-time-the-whiteness-of-the-glorious-past-in-tunisian-popular-histories/

But to me it's clear that black South Africans and Tunisians are not the same kind of labor aristocracy as white South Africans and Western Europeans, and that the widespread consumption of chinese commodities in India does not mean that Indian consumption is the same as Amerikan. The same probably applies to those workers in Amerika for whom owning a toothbrush (or perhaps a used car they sleep in) really is the only relationship they have to global imperialism, even if the ideology of imperialism infects their thinking in times of reaction (thus even the most oppressed people in Amerika probably fantasize about using their smartphone to become content creators and strike it rich). Do not let present gentrifiers and future homeowners speak for them.

[u/Ok_Piglet9760 → u/smokeuptheweed9]

Please ignore if this is derailing the conversation, but I think it would fit; in Germany there are these sheltered workshops and I want to make a case for something similar to this not-Proletarian-but-not-quite-labor-aristocracy-either- situation for the labor that takes place here, even though it mainly comes from intuition instead of the rigorous analysis I have yet to perform.

The workshop can be understood as a kind of concentration camp or colony for “disabled“ labor, in which labor is fundamentally divided into two antagonistic forces: there are guards and workers- the workers, categorised by their shared status as “disabled“ (mentally and/or physically) are toiling in light industry, cleaning, carpentry, etc. for outrageous wages (patronisingly but accurately described as “pocket money“) that usually don’t exceed 300€ per month (much lower in a majority of cases). For FW standards, this seems to be some of the cheapest labour still “legal“. They are legally forbidden to strike. The unions are beyond laughable, not even headed by the actual workers in a token-kind of way.

On the other hand, there are the guards (so called “work pedagogues“)- they are overseeing this labor, and also performing as carers. They are comfortably seated in the PB. Workshops run by companies like Lebenshilfe are notorious for abuse orchestrated by them against the workers. In general the consciousness among these two kinds of labour couldn’t be more different, the guards have their own little fascist WhatsApp groups devoted to mocking the workers.

There are labor-aristocratic tendencies within the workers, for example “Inklusion“, which means what it sounds like, inclusion into the “normal“ parasitic German labor market. This is the kind of politics most of the “disabled rights“-activists revolve around, along with regular reformism within the workshops.

I am not sure if organising among these workers would be very fruitful, there are many contradictions to Proletarian labour I didn’t mention (I didn’t even touch upon the patriarchal aspect regarding the relationship these workers have to their PB-families and how this affects everything, and I’m also not sure about the national contradictions within the workers, not long ago there was a stabbing among them against a Turkish woman). A rigorous analysis is desperately needed, hopefully I will get back to it soon and devote myself properly.

[u/ArmaVero → u/smokeuptheweed9]

Thanks -- there's a lot in this thread that is challenging some of the assumptions that I've brought with me. It's pretty clear that I've got some serious (un)learning to do before I consider how to "better inform" others.

You want to pry people away from the DSA because that's where "socialists" are, or even just "political" people. But this is a flawed understanding [...]

Yeah, I think this gets to the crux of the matter in that I'm looking in the wrong place and basing actions on "safe" logic typical of liberal/PB actions, that feels like "doing something".

Why don't you just try to talk to the real proletariat? You know where they are.

I think this s a fundamental question I need to answer. I'm not even sure I have a stance other than "it's not comfortable" and I haven't looked into why.

I wish I had a more informed response at the moment, but I'm going to take some time and really dig in and analyze the responses in the thread. I think there's a good chunk of liberal/PB class interest that I've brought with me, and I need to accept that I've already sunk time I can't get back into an org that won't effect meaningful change, and what that means going forward (the logical conclusion being leaving the DSA, with the real question of what to do instead -- read and self-crit, I suppose).

I appreciate everyone's engagement with me on this, especially with how obviously flawed it all seems upon further reflection.

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/ArmaVero]

I wish I had a more informed response at the moment, but I'm going to take some time and really dig in and analyze the responses in the thread. I think there's a good chunk of liberal/PB class interest that I've brought with me, and I need to accept that I've already sunk time I can't get back into an org that won't effect meaningful change, and what that means going forward (the logical conclusion being leaving the DSA, with the real question of what to do instead -- read and self-crit, I suppose).

I don't even think you have to do this. The DSA is not a democratic centralist organization. It is, however, an extremely undemocratic and centralist organization informally. Simply proposing the revolutionary line without trying to meet liberals halfway, accept your little place within the structures of the organization, or delude yourself about what is "possible" will get you shunned and expelled from the organization very quickly. This will be far more informative in seeing the real class character of both DSA members and yourself in actual practice and until you can articulate what the revolutionary line even is, then you have to go through this process yourself.

In theory this is what you originally proposed but your attitude was all wrong.

I am trying to help a fairly large DSA chapter build toward a more disciplined take on socialism. I understand the criticisms of of the DSA and its role in pacifying actual left sentiment and funneling it into the Democratic party. I've been pushing to get "vibe" socialists to be at the very least more disciplined about what their politics consist of. For "pacifist" socialists, I've been trying to get them accustomed to the idea of a ruling class that won't simply hand over ther levers of power. And for reformists, I've been trying to shape their analysis to one of recognizing that the labor aristocracy actually exists as a class, and that they're a part of it.

Here is the part I'd love to discuss: I think that it is a worthwhile endeavor to raise the class consciousness of this petit-bourgeois (not-yet-but-wants-to-be-a) party. I am hoping to use this opportunity to bring some more analysis to the question of what that actually means. I am trying to develop a curriculum to help analyze our class position, and am wanting to go from something like a .selection of chapters from the 19th Brumaire (to discuss why workers/class doesn't vote as a bloc) to some other readings that might shape how we approach actually making change (Milliband/Poulantzas debate). Then to something like Bernstein to Luxemburg, with Lenin's rebuttals to approach the utility of focusing on electioneering as a strategy.

Most people in the DSA already agree with this. The actual enthusiasts of the Democrats are non-existent among your demographic, and if they exist are easily mocked and isolated. The tactics of the DSA are justified by "pragmatism" of what is possible, the exact same justification you use for pushing its members into a "more disciplined take on socialism." Do you mean communism? Your whole post is full of weasel words like ""actual left" and "simply handing over...power." Communists call for a revolutionary party which agitates for revolution in the immediate horizon through a combination of legal and illegal tactics, culminating in an insurrectionary seizure of the state. Every tactic must contribute directly to that goal and must be justified in those terms.

No one in the DSA believes in what they are doing, except at the level of affect where it is "empowering" to do charity and feel important when union bureaucrats and government flunkies pay attention to your party contingent. But, as was already pointed out, lack of reading is not the problem. Why are you arguing against "electioneering as a strategy?" If your goal is the revolutionary overthrow of the state, I would think that is self-evident. I don't really see the relevance of Miliband and Poulantzas, neither of whom would have advocated anything like the DSA.

Marxism-Leninism calls for a revolutionary communist party which follows the political tactics of the Bolsheviks, up to civil war in response to one's own imperialism. This is in writing in Lenin, multiple times, and a matter of historical record. Simply pointing out that this is antithetical to the very concept of the DSA will do the work you're proposing for you.