In the United States of America, especially online, you hear a lot of talk about this supposed horrid drag-out fight between leftists and liberals where both sides for some reason fight with the other more so than they do with their actual, strongest ideological opponents that reside on the right. Centrists and rightwing people like to look at the broad left and paint them all with the same brush. Fox News will label things they don’t like as “Marxism” even when those things have nothing to do with either communism or materialism as an ideology. “Joe Biden is a communist” is a very funny statement to make, and a communist might very well spontaneously combust if you say that in complete sincerity.
Left, right, and center are easy generalizations to make to refer to someone or some group’s broad positions on policy relative to the Overton window. If someone says they’re on the right, you can make guesses about the beliefs on economic, social, and foreign policy. They’re likely anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, pro-tax cuts for businesses, pro-Russia. Now that’s not going to be true for every single person. There are people who are pro-intervention and people who are isolationists. Despite the GOP’s institutional homophobia and transphobia, being on the right doesn’t require you to be either of those things. The same holds true for the broad left. You can guess someone is pro-LGBT if they claim to be on the left, but then you have people like the Communist Party of Britain who are anti-trans or Jackson Hinkle and Haz-al-Din, reactionaries who pretend to be leftists and are fine using the f-slur. There are communists, socialists, liberals, tankies, campists.
I recently played the game Disco Elysium, which is both very funny and insanely depressing, especially if you play it immediately after some sort of heartbreak. It makes fun of the left from the left because, and this is going to blow some people’s minds, making fun of yourself and critiquing yourself is good.
When you hear “far-left” what do you think of? Personally, I think of what the internet alternatively calls tankies or campists. Anti-electoralist LARPers who talk a big game about all the violence they’re going to inflict on their enemies when they’re in power but their only actual attempt to grab power is posting online.The so-called dirtbag left. Think The Deprogram, Calla Walsh, Suki’s Mom. Despite Russia being an expansionist country invading and threatening its neighbors, railing against and torturing queer people, and imprisoning and killing political enemies, these types will support it for some reason. America bad or a longing for the Soviet Union. They think China should devour Taiwan and they’re glad it crushed Hong Kong protestors. They’re populists, and yes, that is an insult. As much respect as possible to Abigail Thorn at Philosophy Tube but leftwing populism is not the solution to the horrors of the right. Populism is bad. Anger is not a good basis for politics.
But if you ask someone on the right what the “far left” is, they might vaguely mention communists and then claim China is communist which, funny enough, the actual far-left also claims despite it, you know, not being that. “China is a leftwing country” uh-oh, they’re phenomenally sexist, homophobic, and anti-art? Oops. If the people you ask on the right are vaguely politically minded, they might say something like, “Those communists over at the DSA. Like AOC.” Which, uh, is also sort of funny. But only sort of.
The DSA is the Democratic Socialists of America. You might note that they are not CPUSA. They’re socialists, not communists. They’re also explicitly not a revolutionary party advocating to do immense violence. They want to operate within the bounds of democracy. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to be.
I want to talk about the DSA. I agree with a lot of progressive policy positions. I’m for universal healthcare, ranked-choice voting, an increase to the amount of SCOTUS seats to reflect the amount of appeals courts, statehood for DC and territories that want it, decriminalization and/or legalization of drugs and sex work, death penalty abolition, a green new deal, a federal theatre program, nuclear energy programs, YIMBYism. My pick for the democratic nom in 2016 was Bernie. In 2020 I wanted Warren. I am very much looking forward to President AOC. But I’m not a member of DSA and I have no interest in joining. I want to talk about why.
One - Smolbean Union Busters
If you’re too online like I am and have a case of terminal brain rot, euthanasia may be legal one day, hallelujah, amen. But for now, that might mean you’re aware that one of the reasons DSA has been doing some high-level infighting this year is the National Political Committee engaging in some good old-fashioned socialist union busting. You know that useless soldier at the end of Disco Elysium who says, “Unions are the real enemy, the true enemy of the proletariat, placating the masses.” Apparently, he’s a member of the DSA NPC.
Here’s a question: how profitable is it to run a socialist political nonprofit? If you guessed, “Not at all,” you’re probably right. Coming off the glory years of membership increases during the Trump presidency, Biden’s time in office has not increased the DSA ranks. They’re facing a bit of a budget crisis. It happens. In response to their monetary needs, the NPC, the elected governing body of DSA, voted to fire some staff members. Uh-oh, their staff has a union. As they should, because staff members are workers and every worker, a union.
Now, normally when layoffs start rolling out in a unionized workplace, the union is going to push back, and we enter negotiations. On March 28th of 2024 the DSA Union filed grievances against several of the NPC members for violating the union contract.
The Columbus chapter od DSA issued a statement which reads, in part, “Through successful fundraising, non-staff cuts, and seven voluntary resignations, DSA was able to exceed its financial goals for this year before laying off a single staff member. Yet, the NPC insists it will not negotiate with the DSA Union or adjust the number of layoffs to our new circumstances.” Here’s a question: what do you call a refusal to negotiate with a union? Well, that would be saying that the union does not have bargaining power. One would probably call that union busting then. Refusing to negotiate is bad. So is refusing to adjust the number of requested layoffs with new financials. That makes it clear that the NPC was not and would not operate from a place of budgetary need and did not and do not care about actual financial justification, in my opinion. If the layoffs aren’t for monetary reasons and the NPC refused to act as if the union was a legitimate bargaining power, that gives off the appearance of an ideological anti-union stance.
According to the same Columbus chapter statement, the NPC’s offer to the union would “relegate all unionized staff to at-will employment.” This is called union-busting.
Not if you ask the Red Star caucus who we’ll be talking a lot about because they are, surprise, surprise, the source of a lot of bad press for the DSA. Red Star plainly states that any bargaining would not be “an appropriate use of the NPC’s limited time.” In their article justifying their union-busting and complaining about being called union-busters, Red Star pretty clearly lays out they think the union is illegitimate because they’re a socialist orgnization. No, it doesn’t matter that they are a non-profit structured as an entity in a capitalist market that has employees over whom the NPC does act as the bosses in a legal manner. “It is not class struggle unionism to fight against a worker’s organization, and the union should remember that…”
That, from Red Star, is a clear statement that the DSA Union is bad. That it shouldn’t exist. If the union ever has a dispute with the DSA, their fight is automatically wrong in Red Star’s eyes. In that case, the union shouldn’t and can’t exist. You can say you’re not union-busting all you want, but “hi you can only unionize if you never bargain, dispute, or strike,” is a union-busting statement. It doesn’t matter how mealy-mouthed you are about already being representative of workers because you’re supposedly socialists.
Red Star’s sworn enemy, the Socialist Majority caucus, put out a statement by Ryan Andrews saying, “Our labor staffer performs countless necessary tasks that aren’t possible for the NLC Steering Committee or rank-and-file members to handle on a strictly volunteer basis. The importance of having paid staff therein lies in their ability to manage day-to-day logistics and operations.” Okay, so you might think, yes, kneecapping the organization is unfortunate, but if it’s the only option for the budget… What’s that? Certain elected political leaders retained their pay? Wow, that’s so shocking. The bosses protect their own checks.
The Union tweeted about filing their grievances. In a follow-up graphic, they state, “an NPC member publicly states that they never said they would negotiate with the staff union. Another NPC member states that the NPC should not worry about a grievance or ULP in their dealings with our union because arbitrators ‘usually default to management.’” Just to reiterate: refusing to negotiate with the union is anti-union.
Former union negotiator C.M. Lewis wrote a thread over MOU offers between the NPC and the Union. He says, “It is an accurate description … to call this insulting.” He argues that the NPC approached the negotiations in bad faith and that bad-faith bargaining is an illegal, unfair labor practice. “Based upon documentation of statements by NPC members, as well as the unclear and moving economic targets, the NPC has established a fact pattern that supports allegations of violations of the NLRA and would support a charge with NLRB.”
After pushing this whole “we don’t have the money and must not negotiate with the Union” line, the DSA did post a “we’re hiring” tweet which they got rightfully clowned on for and then deleted. By the way, getting rid of union jobs and then hiring for non-union positions is called, uh, union busting.
NPC Co-chair and Red Star caucus member Megan Romer unsurprisingly voted for union busting. Though, ironically, in July 2023 she made a satirical tweet “But What about the GOOD union busters?” Apparently she was being sincere. Fellow Red Star member Sam Heft-Luthy also voted this way.
Bread and Roses NPC member Alex Pellitteri framed it as “are we staff-driven or member-driven?” as if coming down on either side of that justifies union busting.
MUG NPC member Rashad X had his last tweets pushing MUG’s reasoning for supporting union busting in January. That being the last thing he tweeted is, uh, interesting. He did like a tweet from Marx-and-cookies Kristin saying that busting the union is the only way to be member directed instead of being led around by staff as if the union existing is evil.
That leads us to NPC member Kristin Schall, another union busting voter. When they were recently debating re-endorsing AOC, their best representative both in the elected and in the public relations sense and something Kristin opposed, she claimed to want to engage with people who disagreed with her. When someone said, basically, “lol I’m not going to listen to union busters” she said “Sounds like you actually don’t think we should have a multi-tendency organization.” And to be fair to the person she’s responding to, I also wouldn’t want to be part of one if one of the tendencies is “union busting is good when we do it.” She did retweet Red Star’s “but our union busting is good” article.
Bread and Roses NPC member Laura Wadlin tried to bypass the whole “union busting is good” vote she cast by going “can’t we just get volunteers to do all of this for us for free?” In response to CM Lewis pointing out the NPC’s union busting, she urged him to read an article in The Call which goes “but we’re democratically elected so we’re not bosses so the union is okay it just can’t bargain with us which yes does mean we view it as illegitimate in most aspects but shhh don’t think about it.” She wrote that with Kristin and Alex, by the way.
All that to say: listen. It’s one thing to do “We have to make hard, uncomfortable cuts.” Totally understandable. Hard decisions must be made especially when you’re dealing with numbers. It’s another to, as a body, engage in bad-faith dealing, and an entirely different affair to have members of your body arguing that the union has no right to negotiation. Unfortunately, a single member of leadership making that statement or even implying that throws into question the entire bargaining process. I’ve seen plenty of DSA members get into heavy fights with each other over this, including some asshole who lives up to his chosen handle of Evil Man who once implied the staff union deserved to get killed in the glorious revolution. There have been people who say it’s immature to call people union busters for putting forth the argument that the staff union is illegitimate and has no bargaining power.
I’m used to anti-union arguments. I’m sure most people are. It’s one of those things where, even if you aren’t politically engaged, if you work, you’re going to deal with unions and anti-union sentiments one way or another. For me, I work in the entertainment industry. Unions are our life blood. When you imply that unions become illegitimate when you are in charge, that’s going to make me avoid you and do my best not to put you in power. And that’s not just a me thing. The entire debacle is a bad look for DSA. If I wasn’t going to look into the org and I just saw a brief overview where someone called the NPC unionbusters, that would taint my view of the organization. There are a lot of solidly pro-union people out there who will at least heavily side-eye you the moment you’re labeled anti-union, especially if it’s made out that you only support organized labor when you’re not the boss. Maybe you didn’t intend to union bust, but the moment your members and the caucuses behind your members started arguing that the union was bad because you’re not even really bosses, you became union busters. When one of your members states you have no intention to negotiate, that is union busting. If you don’t want the label, don’t make those statements. Repudiate the people who do. Express some form of self-discipline.
Two - Insane International Committee
Speaking of a group in need of discipline. No, unfortunately we aren’t talking about all the good boys out there. A spank, chin grab, and spit aren’t going to fix this. We’re talking about the DSA International Committee. DSA IC: is crap. DSA IC: insane cope. Ice cream… because they’re so bad.
Every now and then when I see people point out the weirdness of the IC and its loudest members on the internet, people will say it doesn’t represent the organization. Yet, on their About Page, the committee says it “operates day-to-day under the oversight of DSA’s NPC.” The IC has a Steering Committee which, surprise surprise, is a group that steers an organization. For the IC, “All Steering Committee members … are appointed directly by the NPC.” I think it’s fair to say then that the steering committee operates under the blessing of the NPC. They are directly appointed. It is fair then to argue that their statements speak for the main elected body of the DSA. If that’s an unfair assumption, then you’d expect the NPC to push back against any statements that are at odds with the body.
But it didn’t feel right of me to only talk about the person on the steering committee whose internet presence introduced me to the DSA and tainted it before I really knew much about the org. So I went scrolled through their twitter back to March 2023 at which point the website stopped loading more but there’s a quote tweet of an earlier post so no idea what’s going on there. Great job Elon. Thanks.
In April 2024, the IC claimed that Nato expansion helped provoke Russia into invading Ukraine. Only, uh-oh, NATO doesn’t swallow up countries. They apply to join. Perhaps, like Lithuania, they join specifically because of Putin. Regardless, Russia wasn’t provoked into attacking invading another country to steal its territory. Putin said Ukraine isn’t a real country. It’s a made-up one that’s supposed to be Russia. Wow, that sounds like imperialistic nationalism.
They tweeted an article by member James Ray in Mondoweiss. Ray does a similar thing to the Red Star Caucus: he says you can’t condemn Hamas because they’re doing resistance against the colonizers, and if you invoke Franz Fanon, that means it’s inevitable and thereby perfectly fine for violent resistance to kill civilians. Oh, wait. In the entire article, Ray never goes into the specifics of October 7th. Why is that? Probably because he knows harming civilians is shameful. When people are talking about condemning Hamas, they are not talking about military units attacking military units. They are talking about the hundreds of civilians that were killed and kidnapped. Despite what he and apparently the IC might want you to believe, the harm done to you does not excuse the harm you do onto others. No one is immune to critique. A movement that paints over atrocity and goes, “How dare you ever ask about them?” That’s not one any person with morals wants to be part of. Yes, Israel’s response has been horrific. Israel did horrific things before October 7. That does not excuse the actions taken that day. Yes, I condemn Hamas.
On October 11th 2023, they retweeted a statement from Black Alliance for Peace that says, “We say that a colonized people have a right to resist occupation and fight for self-determination by any means necessary!” That tweet links to a statement on the group’s website. They mention over and over how Palestinians have a right to resist and take the war to Israel. Not once do they mention that October 7th was not merely an attack on military targets. Apparently when they say peace in their name, they mean they’ll recognize it’s wrong to kill some civilians. But killing other civilians is based.
On October 7th, they tweeted, “Long live the resistance!” Is it possible that the DSA IC comms person went the entire day without noting the atrocities committed against civilians? Sure. I hope that’s what happened. Given that they later tweeted about how Hamas is fine actually, I somehow doubt that a little bit. Sorry to the non-sadistic members of the IC if they exist.
They also retweeted on October 7 a post by Samidoun Network which, since was made earlier in the day, I wanted to interpret as being made before atrocities started coming to light. Unfortunately, that excuse doesn’t work for the IC here. Because Sami linked to a full statement which went on about how it was good for Hamas to kidnap civilians.
On their YouTube, the IC has a video talking about Yemen and Gaza. In their description, they say, “The actions of the Yemeni government, lad by Ansar Allah (‘the Houthi movement’), are an expression of internationalist solidarity with the Palestinian people and a demonstration of the concrete actions needed to end the genocide in Gaza.” The claim that the actions in the Red Sea were a “blockade of Israeli shipping.” Only, uh-oh, that isn’t true. They attacked several ships that had nothing to do with Israel. British, Japanese, Chinese, American. As Politico says, “The vast majority of the vessels they have attacks are neither Israeli nor destined for the country.” Wow. It’s almost like a violent group that starves its own people and murders them for being gay isn’t a group of based leftists. One of the guests in the video, Rune Agerhus, tweeted of October 7, “These are ordinary people fighting to defend themselves.” My understanding of his posts is that he thinks Oct 7 was fine. I sure hope I’m wrong on that. Other panel member Maz Ajl (aisle) said in an interview with The Red Nation that he’s sure an investigation into Oct 7 would reveal Hamas actually didn’t kill and harm all those civilians they killed and harmed. Oh, and the Houthis aren’t anti-semetic for their whole “a curse upon the Jews” thing because there’s a history to their bigotry and obviously if you have a reason for being a bigot, that means you’re not a bigot. Sure.
They have another video on their YouTube called From the River to the Sea. In it, Charlotte Kates continuously makes sure to call the Israeli civilians taken on October 7 “so-called hostages.” The point is to minimize what was done. Kidnapping civilians is a war crime, by the way. Yes, Israel does lots of horrid things. Uh-oh, that doesn’t suddenly make war crimes okay. Wait, what’s that? Kates is there repping Samidoun? The group who was celebrating Hamas taking captives on October 7th? Wow, shocker, she was a bad choice to have on your panel. In the video she says October 7 has been grossly misrepresented. I wonder what part she takes issue with? The idea that resisting against your oppressor doesn’t give you carte blanch to kill civilians and kidnap children? In correctly arguing that Israel should not be carrying out carnage, Nerdeen Kiswani argues that the Palestinians should be allowed to resist. That is a common refrain. But here’s the thing. That doesn’t apply to harming civilians. October 7th was not valid resistance because it targeted, in part, civilians. It kidnapped, in part, civilians. That is not valid. Who is Kiswani? The found of Within Our Lifetime, an organization you might be familiar with for being in the news recently. The two, of course because one is the other, happily painted the Hamas Red Triangle on people’s homes. What is the red triangle? It’s a symbol Hamas uses in its propaganda videos to make clear their targets before they kill them or blow them up. Wow. Hey guys, maybe fucking don’t platform people who are threatening violence. Based on my understanding of her twitter, Kiswani is an anti-semite as is her organization. That’s a shame. Palestinians deserve better allies. The American left deserves better spokespeople than the morons the DSA IC continuously platforms.
But how about the people in the IC?
IC member Gerard Dalborn retweeted BlackRedGuard saying AOC campaigning for Biden is “stumping for genocide joe” because BRG and Dalborn are both apparently unaware that there are only two viable options in November and one of them is much worse. On literally everything. According to a heavy misunderstanding he has of the First Amendement, punching someone isn’t assault if they tell you to punch them cause then it’s “fighting words.” That’s not how consent or the First Amendment works. He retweeted and thereby endorsed James Ray - remember that guy? - saying “If I was raving outside of a concentration camp and people in it broke out and beat my ass I’d probably be like ‘yeah that makes sense,’ and given Dalborn’s adamant hate for AOC calling out the anti-semitism of WOL’s Nova protests, it seems as if he thinks the mass slaughter of Israeli civilians was fine and they deserved. Psychotic.
So let’s talk about James “Don’t Condemn Hamas” Ray. Ray does this lovely thing that a lot of sadistic LARPers who claim to be on the left do: they have a red triangle emoji in their name. You know, that symbol Hamas puts on its targets in videos before killing them? Wow. So brave James. So edgy. He doesn’t want people to condemn Hamas because he supports them. Over on his TikTok, October 8th, he celebrates October 7 as a brave act of resistance He’s also anti-AOC because she understands how presidential elections work. He blames Nato for Russia invading Ukraine. Oh, but also he implies that aiding Ukraine is supporting facism. Apparently fascism is when a country doesn’t want to be taken over by an invading country! Who knew!
Speaking of Ukraine, IC member Leone Hankey retweeted a paraglider emoji person - based on Hamas paragliding in to kill civilians by the way - who says, “White people do not expect Ukrainians to resist Russian occupation peacefully. … Black and brown people are the ones expected to be peaceful and must negotiate with their oppressors.” Hi! Ukrainian resistance isn’t rushing into Russia, murdering non-combatants, kidnapping civilians, and using those kidnapped for slave labor. Wow, it’s almost like there’s a difference between resistance and immoral acts. Almost like you can resist without disregarding your humanity. But then again, he thinks anyone who supports helping Ukraine resist invasion isn’t really on the left, so I’m not sure he has consistent beliefs.
IC co-chair Jorge is, of course, pro-violence like the other members of the IC. His retweets imply support for the Hamas red triangle stuff. He supports the idea that Israel will end with the mass expulsion of Israelis with the implication that Israeli people are a disease. Hi, that’s ethnic cleansing. Generally frowned upon. He’s of course anti-Taiwan because imperialism is fine when China does it. Apparently supporting Palestine but not supporting violence against civilians confuses him. He’s pretending that the Houthis are based anti-imperialists for attacking civilian ships in the Red Sea at random. Oh! And he explicitly doesn’t condemn October 7. Because killing and kidnapping civilians is fine as long as you call is resistance and historically progressive.
IC Steering member Fern Da Silva enjoys Red Star’s “Hamas are good” article. She endorses not voting for the president despite talking about the importance of voting for the least bad viable option in an election. No, she’s not suggesting some 3rd party, literally abandoning all responsibility and leaving it blank. And she supports Red Star’s “Boooo they were gonna mention Israeli civilians harmed on October 7 how rude” article.
And finally we get to the account that put DSA on my radar: snackvampire: Mirah, member of DSA IC steering. Oh, wait, I have no interest in causing myself psychic damage by reading a barrage of general unpleasantness.
Listen, guys. You can’t pull the whole “Violent resistance is good” thing while also being anti-Ukraine resisting invasion by Russian imperialism. You definitely can’t then turn around and say that supporting fighting back against a military is the same thing as killing civilians and non-combatants. You can’t even say you support all resistance against Israel including against civilians like that’s a moral position AND get bought in by the lazy propaganda of the Houthis attacking random ships while pretending like they’re doing that for Gaza. Being maximally pro-violence, minimizing anti-semitism, pretending nothing bad happened on October 7, pushing back against the horrors in Gaza by advocating for ethnic cleansing of Israelis all the while being cruel to anyone who pushes back on you? That isn’t going to bring anyone to your side. But that would only matter if you cared about bringing people to your side, and convincing people only counts if you’re actually attempting politics. But these people aren’t. They’re doing anger. They want internet points. Insert ContraPoints talking about how these people don’t want power. Insert the firebomb the walmart meme.
Three - Bad Caucuses
I did a video over the never-ending and never-changing discourse about violence in Avatar: The Last Airbender. In it, I talked about the insecurity and the morality of violence. Not long after the events of October 7th, 2023, DSA caucuses Red Star and Marxist Unity Group, hereafter known as MUG, released a statement. In it, they lamented that their proposed statement for DSA wasn’t ultimately put out and that what DSA considered put out was edited in ways they didn’t care for. They happily provided both their version and the then NPC’s version. The main difference? The revised version mentioned a dislike for civilian death whether that be Israeli or Palestinian. The uncharitable conclusion of that statement is that these two caucuses are fine with the deaths of Israeli civilians. Now if you’re a decent human person, you might find that objectionable.
So let’s talk about some of the beliefs of various DSA caucuses that give DSA as a whole a bad name. DSA is a decentralized organization so it’s not that easy to apply message or membership discipline. Otherwise the supposed fact that the majority of membership doesn’t agree with the IC might mean something about them putting out insane statements in the org’s name.
Since I’m inclined to dislike Red Star, let’s look at them first.
First of all, they label themselves as revolutionary. They say good reform is nice, but socialism can’t come from capitalism. They come shy of outright calling for violence, but… if legislation and voting aren’t going to change things, and you want to form a government… Revolution in the war sense. A violent revolution isn’t going to happen guys, if it did, it would not result in socialism or communism. It would kill many people, make life worse for most, and the resulting society would probably be awful. But hey, calling for revolution lets you feel good and edgy, I guess. They also pull the very stupid line of “We see no benefit in levying public criticism of states or movements that are opposed to US empire.” Apparently if you’re anti-US, Red Star thinks critiquing you is bad. So do whatever bad stuff you want!
They’re the ones with the “Do you commend Hamas?” graphic which hey, is bad and dumb and won’t convince normal people you aren’t psychotic. They’re against AOC, of course, because she does stuff and doesn’t call for their glorious revolution. Apparently she doesn’t do anything for DSA though based on what they say on twitter, NYC DSA members disagree with that assertion. Oh and how dare she understand that it’s either Biden or Trump and Biden is the better option. They think no one on the left is allowed to critique the Cuban government because that’s mean. They’re the pro-union busting caucus. But hey, that’s all part of building the groundwork for the revolution they want. Apparently convincing people isn’t. Apparently they think North Korea is not authoritarian. Or, alternatively due to the scare quotes, they don’t think authoritarianism is a thing because they want to employ it or they suck off Lenin’s corpse or some moronic shit. They embrace accelerationism apparently. They’re supposed to do a revolution. Why haven’t they? It’s because they’re LARPing and it makes them feel better. They seem to push the Russian talking point that it’s NATO’s fault they invaded Ukraine and started doing all those war crimes. US Imperialism bad, but nowhere in the article does Red Star remotely mention Russia’s imperialism here, probably because of their whole “don’t critique US enemies” thing. Apparently that includes when they’re doing imperialism. Oh, and they push the false idea that NATO promised to never expand. When Bernie endorsed Biden in 2020, you know, when again there two options, one of which was vastly worse, Red Star said “Realignment of the Democratic Party is over; with his endorsement of Biden, Bernie is as well.” How dare he prefer Biden over Trump. What horrors. I wonder why people think Red Star is bad for DSA’s image.
Moving onto to the other half of that “We’re annoyed they added language about how it’s bad to kill civilains” article regarding DSA’s statements on Oct 7, Marxist Unity Group. MUG. They’re also calling for a revolution. Wow, stupid. After they succeed in their violent revolution, they want everyone to have guns, of course, and for there to be universal conscription which, hey, isn’t bad because it’s done by capitalists, it’s bad because forcing people to work as tools of violence is bad. They call for unimpeded labor and union rights but I guess that doesn’t count for the DSA staff union. Or, apparently, hotel unions when they went to complain about not being allowed to violate a different contract.
Hi DSA. There isn’t going to be a revolution. Russia and Russia alone is responsible for invading its neighbors. Taiwan is Taiwan. China’s actions in Hong Kong and the South China Sea are and have been authoritarian warmongering. It is possible to support Palestine without supporting Hamas killing and kidnapping civilians. Unions are a good thing. Heck, some of your fellow members seem to understand that. I looked back into DSA after seeing the support some members gave to SAG and the Screenwriters Guild during the strikes in the entertainment industry. As a film person, that elevated the org in my eyes tremendously. Unfortunately, that meant I followed some people and started to see petty infighting, anti-union sentiment, campism, and general cruelty. The guy I saw supporting the unions has made several posts talking about how he wishes hell is real so the bad guys can get harmed in the next life. That inspired a whole video from me. That’s a horrible position to have. Sadism is bad.
DSA is a lot of things. Sometimes those things are contradictory. Sometimes they don’t make sense. Like perhaps, the org’s position on
Four - Sanctions
The DSA’s position on sanctions is nonsensical.
One plank in their platform:
“Build an anti-war movement that opposes US intervention, including sanctions.”
A later plank:
“Stop using economic and financial sanctions to punish other countries, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran, that dare to act independently of the United States. End all broad-based sanctions that are designed to punish entire populations, violently coerce foreign governments, and instigate regime change.”
A plank between those two:
“Stand in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle against apartheid, colonialism, and military occupation, and for equality, human rights, and self-determination, including the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.”
Now you might be thinking, like I did, “Wait. What’s with that sanctions part of BDS? How can you support a movement for sanctions while being against sanctions?” Maybe, you think, BDS isn’t actually calling for sanctions in the normal sense, it’s just better to have a list of three. But their website says, “Sanctions were the final blow to the apartheid regime in South Africa and the BDS movement calls for sanctions against Israel.” On the same page, “The BDS movement calls for sanctions against Israel, similar to the sanctions that were imposed against apartheid South Africa. These sanctions could include a military embargo, an end to economic links and the cutting of diplomatic ties.” They call for “the suspension of free trade agreements and other bilateral agreements with Israel.”
To get an idea of that, what are some of the sanctions pressed against apartheid South Africa? Well, in the US, sanctions came through the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. Some things this act did: no imports from South Africa of agriculture, things humans consume, iron, steel, uranium, coal, textiles, sugar, sirup, and molasses. No giving them oil. No US persons were allowed to make new investments in the country. No South African planes to the US. No US planes can touch down in South Africa. No US banks holding accounts for South Africa. No tax treaty between them.
Apartheid ended. So sanctions can work, right?
In an article for Slate, Joshua Keating points out that obviously it wasn’t that simple. Just as BDS isn’t focused on doing only one thing, it was a combination of factors within and without South Africa that led to the country changing for the better. After discussing the effect on South Africa’s economy and the perception of the money movers within the country, he says, “This goes to support the argument that sanctions are most effective against governments that want to trade with the countries sanctioning them and are sensitive to international public opinion.” And, well, Israel obviously wants international legitimacy and trade, especially with the US.
Do I bring this up because I think the sanctions against South Africa were bad? No. By the way, you should listen to or read Trevor Noah’s Born a Crime. Hilarious and heartbreaking. There’s an argument for sanctions being able to make things better in Israel and Palestine.
My issue with DSA is that they’re opposed to sanctions. Except in this specific case. They’re acts of war, and DSA is anti-war… Unless we’re declaring war on Israel? But then you aren’t anti-war, you’re just very selective in your pro-war stance. But you call yourself anti-war… so then you’re just a liar? Incapable of thinking through the things you say?
The Metro DC chapter of DSA has an article which says, “Far from being an alternative to war, sanctions are a US tool of war. They are intended to coerce and even topple governments disfavored by the US. In hopes of accomplishing these goals, sanctions inflict suffering on civilian populations that have nothing to do with the actions of their government leading to humanitarian disasters.” So sanctions are war. BDS wants sanctions. DSA supports BDS. DSA wants war. According to that Slate article, that exact same line of reasoning was used to oppose sanctions on South Africa. Okay. So either DSA is not exacting in its anti-sanctions, anti-war stance and believes that some harm on civilians caused by sanctions is acceptable. Or they somehow think there are no Israeli civilians in which case, I guess that explains why they have caucuses commending Hamas and getting pissy about people being horrified by the whole killing and kidnapping of civilians thing.
Well, DSA IC opposes targeted sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and the atrocities it’s committed there. Why? It’ll harm ordinary Russians. So then war crimes aren’t what makes sanctions okay.
DSA San Francisco has an article titled End Sanctions which reads, “Sanctions as a weapon of war are always most keenly felt by those who are most vulnerable – not billionaires with yachts.” Well if that’s always the case, then sanctions against Israel won’t most damage Israeli ultra-capitalists but its working class, its poor, its women, children, and minorities.
So here’s what I want to suggest to DSA: You either consider actions to be categorical wrongs, in which case you must oppose them in all instances, or you don’t. Either sanctions are evil acts of war that always harm the most vulnerable or they can be moral tools against evil. They cannot, however, be both. If you are going to argue against sanctions in every other instance, specifically bringing up the harm to civilians, then you HAVE to explain why that doesn’t apply when you argue they’re necessary. Are your sanctions so targeted that there’s no chance they’ll affect civilians? Then you need to provide those details on your website, perhaps, in your platform, for all of us to see and consider. If you’re going to argue that sanctions are going to affect civilians but in this case that’s acceptable, you have to say that and lay out why. If you’re going to argue there are no civilians in Israel so there are no “innocents” for the sanctions to harm, you have to say that. If it’s that last one, you’re going to get shat on for it. Why? Because that makes you a bad person and would be a prime example why the general populace isn’t in DSA and doesn’t seem to want to be. Or, perhaps, you’re lying, and you don’t care about how sanctions affect civilians. You argue against them because you’re anti-US or you support the actions that led to the sanctions. You don’t believe in good or bad actions, only good or bad teams.
My best guess here is that it’s somewhere between the middle two suggestions. People who do the whole “settlers aren’t civilians and Israel is really IsNotReal so they’re all settlers and none are civilians” and people assigning a sort of collective guilt to all the civilians. Which leads to the question of… where is the line? What atrocities are worthy or punishment and which aren’t? When do civilians become responsible for the actions of their governments? What actions would you support sanctions on the US for?
I’m going to lay a good deal of blame here on DSA’s lack of portrayed seriousness. Your national platform is a relatively short webpage. It’s an easy scroll. Most of your planks are not detailed. You have a national committee. You have plenty of committees. Every time you have a convention, you need to put out a detailed platform that includes the date of the platform. You may not currently be a political party, but if you want to be taken seriously as a force in American politics that operates somewhat like a political party, act like some fiber and get your shit together.
Five - End of History
It’d be nice if there was a serious left in the US. I want people to challenge the Democrats, to drive out the Republicans, to pull me to the left and then leave me behind in the dustbin as things improve and improve. I would like AOC to be president one day. But DSA is not, currently, portraying itself as serious. It does good things. Support for Palestine? Good. Support for the actors and writers strike? Good.
The public fight over the union stuff? Most people didn’t see that, thankfully, because most people aren’t on twitter, most people on twitter on the political side, and most of those people don’t give a shit about the DSA. But god was that embarrassing for you guys. The whole debacle is embarrassing because, well, union-busting is shameful, but the fights seemed to mostly be focused on being rude to each other. Constantly. Without end and mostly without apology. Every org is going to have disagreements, but having a dude named Evil Man calling for your staff members to die? Unacceptable, especially for him to not then be widely and forcefully condemned. You people are vicious to each other. And, well, to everyone else. I read an article DSA put out bemoaning that AOC isn’t the old AOC. In it, the author seems to lament that AOC is no longer a fiery populist.
Populism seems to mean the aesthetics of anger disguised as politics. Its purpose isn’t getting electeds or passing policy or convincing non-members of your views. It’s about telling you there are people to hate and people to be cruel to and that you’re right to want to throw your anger out at people.
So I have to ask. Is DSA a leftist project for politics? Or is it an anger management rejects club?
Comments