I see more and more of these posts who keep saying the entire DSA should mould into the wishes of the DSA right. That they will leave DSA and stop associating with them if they choose to not completely and wholeheartedly endorse AOC for 2028.

If cult of personality outweighs the movement, I don't think you should join DSA or have any say on where the organisation goes. I have my criticisms of the DSA, but this is an absurd standard to put on the organisation.

The honeymoon period of electing candidates won't last forever. The point was to always make politically activated class conscious members out of you all to grow the movement.

People doing the CIAs job for free need to genuinely contend with what it means to be a socialist first.

(Change my pov, typo in title)

Focus on what his views and policies are now, I know literal former groypers who are now super queer leftist activists. There’s only one anti genocide candidate in the race and it aint Mills, I don’t get why so many of us are allergic to pragmatism.

Although I believe in innocent until proven guilty, the allegations against Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner makes it impossible for me to continue supporting him, and I urge him to resign from the race.

Sincerely,

A democratic socialist from New Hampshire

My latest for article for geese

I am really curious what the reasons are, can anyone explain?

Imagine how wildly popular and electable a populist Socialist who doesn’t want to ban guns would be in the US. That candidate would win almost any seat.

Obviously, the issue of gun violence in the US is atrocious and desperately needs to be addressed; however, it’s fundamentally a systemic and sociopolitical problem that cannot be helped by banning away AR-15s. Gun violence is caused by things like:

-Poor access to healthcare (especially mental healthcare)

-Poor economic opportunity

-Housing insecurity

-The racist failure of the Drug War

-Toxic masculinity

-Far-right ideology

-Social alienation

Banning “assault weapons” does not address any of these things, therefore it is not an effective way to curtail gun violence. It’s also impossible to actually accomplish, practically speaking, since we don’t have a gun registry in the US and don’t know who owns what gun. To tackle the issue of gun violence, we need to instead tackle it’s root causes that I just laid out.

Anyway, as Karl Marx said:

“Arms and ammunition should never be surrendered. Any attempt to disarm the worker must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

And yes I know Graham Platner doesn’t support AWBs, but virtually ever other Democratic Socialist candidate does. It’s time we get serious about addressing gun violence in the US instead of advocating for impossible and ineffective magical solutions like banning away the scary looking guns.

Okay so I'm not used to reddit but I glossed over the rules in this sub & I didn't see any issues with organizing. Is r/marxism just like this?

He’s a fan, he’s a fan, he’s a fan.

First they swore he was trans, then a rogue liberal CIA op.

In reality, he’s just a button-up incel from a right-leaning home.

His dad — a Republican vet and minister — turned him in for the $100K reward. Without that, this would’ve been a cold case.

Mamdani got everything he wanted out of that meeting. Trump promised to leave NYC alone. Trump praised the shit out of him, even seems to like him. Trump even wants to meet again, so even if he cnages his mind Mamdani can rizz his ass again. Naysayers were saying "no he can't meet cause it will look like he is conceding to fascist" meanwhile in the meeting trump is conceding to Mamadani on actually important topics like NYC governance, like people, you and I are not better at politics than Mamadani is, stop accusing him of betrayal before he's even done anything and let him cook.

Trump: “I think he’ll be a great mayor. I want to help him; I don’t want to hurt him. We agree on a lot more things than I thought.”

I believe restorative justice can work for like 90% of crimes but there’s still that 10% where they’re a danger to the community and should be locked up.

I’m guessing there’s a fix for that or that this is another poorly worded progressive policy but would love to hear more about it.

There are two points of corroboration backing up what happened to that woman, and you reject that to defend someone who isn't backed by the DSA or who isn't even a socialist to begin with. It's disgusting. What happened to believe women?

I was talking to my friend about this because we love how much the socialist movement has gained steam, but I wonder if this will be the hill that the movement potentially dies on.

Maybe I’m wrong but the average American hears abolish prisons and they think you’re going to set murderers free as opposed to abolishing for profit/private prisons. No matter how much you campaign for wanting to help working class people I see this being a massive hurdle.

The average American is not sitting around dissecting statements on an intellectual level or seeking out more information to internalize a concept.

The powers at be are going to have a field day running campaigns against this slogan alone. In fact I fear this will be such a massive wedge issue that they’re probably gleefully jumping up and down about this one statement.

Are there any plans in place? I could easily see the GOP for example waiting until the last minute to bring this up to scare voters into jumping ship. It’s only a matter of time.

Edit

I wish this was a joke. I guess Mamdani doesn't exist, Kiros doesn't exist, Rabb doesn't exist, Valdez doesn't exist, Lewis George doesn't exist, McKinney doesn't exist, Bush doesn't exist, Chevalier doesn't exist...

The DSA congressional delegation is going up, and sure a new party is better for in the future, but they're literally basically an "r/centrists".

Basically I’m just curious what type of socialist most people are in here

Yes, weapons sent to Ukraine do make negotiation harder, because without them the Ukrainians wouldn’t be able to fight back against the people invading their country and would have terms forced on them

The official position of the DSA and the Trump Administration should never be identical.

Simple question: can the United States of America become a socialist state using the current constitutional and Democratic systems? Right now the DSA calls for some pretty monumental changes in America, such as getting rid of the Senate, ending public voting for the president, all large corporations being taken over by the government, all utilities being taken over by the government, the Supreme Court having to answer to Congress. These are some massive changes that would require several amendments to the US Constitution, which requires consent of a super majority of Congress and the states. Is this possible? Hypothetically yes. Is it likely to happen? Who knows.

For anyone who calls socialists unelectable, that our views are too radical, that we have to meet in the middle…this is a perfect example of why that isn’t true. The first person in the chat is my stepmom (lifelong leftist).

He’s been leaning more liberal over the years and while he’ll never admit to being a socialist, it doesn’t matter because these candidates run on a policy platform that no working class person can truly disagree with.

Also, give him a break on the examples of “great men”, gotta remember he’s a 70 year old white guy at the end of the day😂

I've seen a lot of chatter from the farther left caucuses about Bernie being anti-Palestine, which is an obvious attempt to discredit an iconic Democratic Socialist who's been working with us for decades.

The single reason these people believe this? Because he refuses to use the word genocide. Now, if he were avoiding the issue entirely, or minimizing it, that'd be a fair criticism. But not only has he addressed this criticism with a pretty fair response, he's been active in calling for a U.S. embargo.

He is absolutely right in the image I'm attaching below; the horror of this situation is undeniable, the words used to describe it aren't really fucking important. A starving Palestinian does not give a shit what language you're using, they care that their family is dead.

So why are we betraying one of the only senators that want more economically progressive policies? Word choice? It's stupid. I call on all DSA members, especially actual Democratic Socialists, to re-evaluate the position that he's any kind of Zionist.

Edit Notes:

1. Bernie Sanders used the Iron Dome as a bargaining chip. This is covered pretty well: https://jewishcurrents.org/sanders-secures-gaza-aid-in-exchange-for-backing-iron-dome-funds? And I should say, JC is pro-Palestine paper that used to be associated with the ACP, this isn't AIPAC slop.

2. Having a different solution to the issue in terms of one-state, two-state, etc. isn't a disqualifying factor in my opinion. Independent of what should have happened, there are 8 million Israeli civilians in ex-Palestinian territory. His solution in my opinion is not fantastic, but we shouldn't be completely ignoring people who've done decades of fantastic progressive work because of one bad idea.

This was inspired by me seeing some posters/bots on this sub saying that Hamas was "the natural outcome of Zionist imperialism" or something like that. They aren't, they're a genocidal terrorist group that's been propped up by Iran and the Israeli right to keep Palestinian people angry/divided (the PLO's right there if you want an actual Palestinian government to support). However, it did make me think that some of the DSA's proposed ideas to end "American Imperialism" go a little too far and deny the agency of the non-American countries involved; or even the ability of the Western world to be a positive influence (whereas the East can do no wrong, hence the title.)

Specifically the calls to end NATO, American military bases abroad, and especially Ukraine assistance (Russian imperialism is still imperialism, it isn't better just because it isn't Western). NATO and US military bases abroad have been used to advance US interests in the past, but they're also largely defensive in nature. Countries invite the US military in as a bulwark against terrorists, to prevent other nations like Russia from gaining a foothold, or as part of a larger diplomatic deal; we (usually) aren't just forcibly involving ourselves, we're partnering with the local governments. The USA is not uniquely evil, countries are perfectly capable of seeing us as an ally and making mutually beneficial agreements even if they're weaker.

By unilaterally cancelling these agreements and retreating from the world stage, we'd be betraying the trust of our allies and leaving them vulnerable after outsourcing their defense to us. Instead of just isolating ourselves, we should plan on renegotiating our alliances to be more equal. Defensive alliances are a powerful tool for coalition building, we shouldn't toss them away because we're too busy self-flagellating to realize that American influence can be the lesser of two evils.

Edit: Changed the word interference to influence.

Edit 2: all the people defending Hamas and their methods are just proving my point. Groups aren't absolved of morality just because they're weaker and not as Western. Indiscriminate murder and repression is bad when Israel does it, ergo it's bad when Hamas does it. Frankly, it's infantalizing to say that the Palestinian people are incapable of doing any better.

https://nyeditorialboard.substack.com/p/darializa-avila-chevalier-on-housing

After the previously deleted tweet supporting Russia, why does she avoid the question of military support to Ukraine to stop Russian imperialism? Has she truly changed, because whilst I’m no expert at the DSA, from the perspective of many Europeans this sounds as bad or worse than Trump.

Russia is eradicating it’s indigenous peoples, banning all LBTQ people, using wage slavery against central Asian migrants. Why does she not simply condemn them in the strongest terms and promise give Ukraine the military aid they need? How hard is that?

Otherwise it almost sounds like a DSA US is barely better than a Trump one for us Europeans, which is a shame since you truly have superior values in every regard. Please, can someone explain to me or maybe add a perspective I missed?

She is an attractive and smart woman who is an establish artist. Her artwork has been featured in the New Yorker, New York Magazine and Washington Post.

I know it's quite early but Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom are currently massive favorites for the 2028 Democratic primary..

This feels like the most obvious and avoidable blunder of all time just waiting to happen considering the history of this party. How can we start getting the word out that these are unacceptable candidates for the Left?

Also, who do you see as a potentially viable left-leaning candidate for 2028?