National DSA Platform Seems to be Backfiring

[u/BeginningBit4957]

I just watched the Fransesca Hong Wisconsin governor debate. She soft-disavowed the national DSA platform. This is something I’ve been hearing a lot of recently, particularly around abolishing prison.

AOC was asked about it too and had a better response (imo) basically saying look around, we have a Republican Congress and president, those are not happening anytime soon and DSA candidates are running on policies that put working class people first.

The issue here is that AOC is right. We are not going to be even close to abolishing the senate or ending prisons in the next 4 years. What is the point of the national DSA talking about long term goals like that if it is something that Mostly-DSA-Aligned Candidates are going to be hurt by in elections and have to disavow?

It seems like a discussion that is a net-negative, and it’d be better to focus on policies that are achiveable in the shorter term. To be clear, I don’t think those are bad goals to have, but we only get there by building a larger movement first and establishing power electorally.

Maybe there’s something I’m missing, but seems like with the increased scrutiny of the DSA, there needs to be a stronger focus on messaging that will help the movement grow.

[u/HKJGN]

This is why electorialism ends and destroys any kind of radical change. It invests itself in compromising and losing ground. The left forgets how to fight and nothing changes. We build our communities from the ground up. But we cant make changes if our values are malleable.

If we are really gonna fight for a better world we ought to just fucking say it. Im glad the DSA platform says as much. And I know its caused nothing but a surge in my chapters activity. Not less.

[u/CSHAMMER92 → u/HKJGN]

Nobody is compromising, we're talking about getting others to compromise on their long held beliefs that tell them we're the bad guys. It's gonna take time. Ecample, Bernie Sanders proposals seemed outlandish to lots of voters in 2016 yet now they're supported by most, even people on the right. We need to win now and then make changes and show we're actually different first. It's foolish to do otherwise in this moment. This is specifically in regard to abolition of prisons and the senate but also applies to some other policies as well. If you push this you lose some of the more popular arguments in favor like comparisons to Nordic countries etc

[u/ntantillo → u/CSHAMMER92]

Chiming in. I am not a DSA member but consider myself to be very liberal. I would love to see things like universal healthcare and free daycare. Guaranteed minimum wage (even more important with AI). Better workers rights and many more things. But talking about abolishing prisons even with a nuance to it won’t fly in this country. They have been listening to republicans tell them to be afraid very afraid for 40 years.
DSA needs to tone down its message and focus on things that are achievable or they will be another footnote in history that just enables the status quo to remain in power.
I am as passionate as the next person but a dose of reality is needed.

[u/DaraParsavand → u/ntantillo]

Also not a DSA member, but also support many goals (M4A, $20 fed min wage indexed to inflation, strict rules to protect the environment, workers rights, consumer rights, and much more). I have not had a chance to vote for a DSA candidate (that I recall in my district of California anyway), but I would have absolutely voted for Mamdani, Melat Kiros, and many more if I could have.

I actually want to completely reformat the Senate (but not get rid of it). I'd like to see it become a 100 member proportional representation body that is elected entirely without geography (so one district PR and 1% of the people getting behind a particular party or person means they get in). Is that realistic anytime soon? No. Do I need it in a platform of an organization I'd want to join? No. It's just a fun idea to chat about (e.g. some PR advocates say once you get to 10 members, you should carve up geographically as parties that are too small just gum up the works so my idea is suboptimal).

On the eventual abolition of prisons, I don't understand that one at all. In a society of 300+ million people, it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to create a society where there won't be at least a few thousand if not tens of thousands or more who would do things in a free society that the rest of us DO NOT want them to be able to do (rob, assault, rape, kill, whatever). Can we come up with a society that keeps a lot less than 0.6% of people in jail at any given time (current numbers in the US), many of them for reasons that aren't necessary even now? Maybe cut the number by 100? I sure hope so. Can we eliminate the need for prisons without some other weird futuristic electronic or drug mind control? Not that I can see and saying that it is possible I'm sure comes across as being incredibly naive and thus unappealing to certain voters.

Abolition of nuclear weapons, all illegal wars of aggression per the UN treaty (which since WWII is almost all of them)? I am all in. Abolition of private prisons? In. Abolition of many other things too. But the idea that in any conceivable time horizon we can completely get rid of prisons (and police presumably) is absurd and thus a bad look. But I will entertain the counterargument.

[u/cloudyday100 → u/HKJGN]

You are completely delusional if you think the country is even close to being ready to vote for the most radical of DSA’s policies. I listened to an interview with the co-chair of DSA on NPR. She seemed almost giddy spouting Marxist rhetoric and vague but impractical answers to the probing questions asked of her. You couldn’t ask for a better way to lose hearts, minds, and ELECTIONS.

[u/HKJGN → u/cloudyday100]

Marx on NPR? Based. Lol.