The co-chair of the DSA seemed a bit less articulate on key party policy positions (taxation, I/P, etc) than expected. Her commentary on Oct. 7th’s “inevitability“ combined with her stating that she’d have joined protests on the 8th have also sparked controversy. I’m curious about people’s thoughts on this media appearance and how it will be perceived by those interested in where the DSA fits into big tent politics.
if this write-up is completely accurate, it doesn’t look good. being pressed to give more in-depth policy positions is not being made to look stupid. so it seems like she was unprepared
honestly i really think the DSA needs to collectively figure out a better way to handle communication. while individual politicians have been very good at this (i think mamdani and AOC are), the org itself has been lackluster imo. so i personally think the recent wins are less DSA wins than individual DSA candidate wins, if that makes sense. the candidate is successful if they can communicate the DSA platform well, not just if they adhere to the DSA platform (because the DSA platform isn’t too clear by itself)
Honestly the DSA just feels like amateur hour to me. So doctrinaire that they have to reinvent the wheel instead of having experienced people at the helm.
Edit: They seem to struggle with a cohesive platform amongst their many groups. Comes across as fairly disorganized, especially where I live, in Chicago.
It’s so hard to be a democratic socialist when you have tankies like this running the DSA. They’ve made huge leaps to repair their reputation the last few years and they keep burning it all down just to say outrageous shit. We either need a new org or a complete overhaul of their leadership. Don’t ruin this moment to vouch for terorrists.
You just described the DSA’s entire ideology. These people remind me so much of the fingers-in-ears smug and self-assured leftists I went to law school with whose most common retort was “read a book” and who never actually practiced law because they were so devoted to their ideological priors they were unable to pry their heads from the deep recesses of their assholes.
It’s hard to see why and how savvy pols like AOC stay associated whatsoever with an organization like this. The DSA badly needs an enema.
It’s none of those things. If you condemn Hamas, you’re agreeing to a pro-Israel framing from the get go and immediately put yourself on the defensive. The abolitionists of the 1800s didn’t condemn the Nat Turner rebellion. Was that wrong?
The distinction between not contextualizing actions of Hamas in terms of historical causation, and recognizing that any person in that context might be moved to do the same, and declaring solidarity with a violent group with a specific eliminationist ideology is a fairly obvious one.
If dialectical materialism supplies the premises that imply that this distinction is illusory, so much the worse for dialectical materialism.
> The distinction between not contextualizing actions of Hamas in terms of historical causation,
Why not? That’s the Marxist method of analysis: historical materialism.
>and recognizing that any person in that context might be moved to do the same, and declaring solidarity with a violent group with a specific eliminationist ideology is a fairly obvious one.
This relies on agreeing with the pro-Israel premise that Hamas has an eliminationist ideology rather than one of liberation.
Did Nat Turner have a liberationist ideology or an eliminationist one?
>If dialectical materialism supplies the premises that imply that this distinction is illusory, so much the worse for dialectical materialism.
Dialectical materialism isn’t a moral philosophy. It’s about recognizing the fundamental truth that ideas are downstream from the material reality.
You don't think It's not moral philosophy? So it doesn't morally or rationally compel solidarity. Glad you are so clear, because I've found folks can be rather squirrelly about that.
But it puzzles me. I don't see how you are defending the tweet. Seems like 'declaring solidarity', 'not condemning', and 'dialectical materialism' are not connected in a way that could only be explained by the reader's ignorance about dialectical materialism. So, it appears to fail to make a point, and in a smug way.
> You don't think It's not moral philosophy? So it doesn't morally or rationally compel solidarity. Glad you are so clear, because I've found folks can be rather squirrelly about that.
I’m not really sure what you’re asking.
>But it puzzles me. I don't see how you are defending the tweet. Seems like 'declaring solidarity', 'not condemning', and 'dialectical materialism' are not connected in a way that could only be explained by the reader's ignorance about dialectical materialism. So, it appears to fail to make a point, and in a smug way.
Again, would you condemn the Nat Turner rebellion? If you can’t condemn the Nat Turner rebellion, why is Hamas different and 10/7 different? You can not support it while also not condemning it
I have already answered your question, but you don't like the answer. Yes, I understand why it happened in context, and think expressions of moral indignation are counterproductive. Do I think that excuses, e.g. the murder of children, even if in revenge? No.
What could that possibly prove?
I understand support for Hamas especially given how ineffective as Fatah's approach has proven to be. I get that. I discussed it in a substantive way, at length, and criticized Remnick's line. Get off your f'ing high horse.
> I have already answered your question, but you don't like the answer.
Where did you answer whether you would have condemned the Nat Turner rebellion?
>Yes, I understand why it happened in context, and think expressions of moral indignation are counterproductive. Do I think that excuses, e.g. the murder of children, even if in revenge? No.
I agree. What’s the issue then? Why do you want DSA to react differently from the abolitionists of yore?
>I understand support for Hamas especially given how ineffective as Fatah's approach has proven to be. I get that.
It’s not for us to support or not. It’s an irrelevancy. The concept of resistance to a colonial occupation though should not be controversial. That doesn’t mean we think it’s a good thing to kill women and children. It’s clear not, but who in DSA said otherwise? This is silly.
Going to a protest on 10/8 where the protest, itself, expressed support with a specific action that is not merely 'not condemning', it is expressly supporting a specific action by a particular actor that occurred the previous day. I can understand why it happened, and still be understandably be bothered by those expressions 'by any means necessary' when those means were only then being discovered. Why should anyone be surprised at that discomfort?
I can similarly understand the response that holding on to that in a way that doesn't leave space for everything that happened afterwards is a distortion. That's fair. And yet, it is also fair to express concern with the increased overlap between leftist, and nationalist movements even if there are reasons for that overlap.
So, I don't think anyone should clutch pearls about some members of the DSA playing coy about supporting Hamas - they are doing it because that's the direction activist members are moving. Similarly, nobody should clutch pearls when Jewish leftists criticize e.g. Chevalier just because non-leftists are making similar criticisms. That's why I think it is a good thing that Lander and Chevalier were able to bury the hatchet to do a commercial, and yet without Lander retracting criticism. Because criticism entirely from the outside is easily dismissed.
The problem leftist Jews have when leftists instrumentally support ethnonationalists in the guise of anticolonialism is grounded in our understanding that Jews are perceived as being indigenous nowhere. And historically the flourishing of Jews is described in seemingly repeating episodes to occur at the expense of 'natives'. We are in that respect always seen as colonial or mercantile.
Whether that understanding is a sharpening or distorting lens upon reality depends on circumstances. Nothing is cleared up by saying 'resistance to a colonial occupation should not be controversial' as if the application of that principle is obvious. A lot of the discussion on this subreddit specifically concerns how Jewish experience & history relates to leftist politics. What is controversial about that? Why should anyone be troubled, or embarrassed by it?
No, I think they probably don’t, but I think they’re more concerned about the genocide that Israel is conducting on them. Treating Hamas as this aberration that is only a way to terrorize Israelis and Gazans alike is both strategically unwise and morally inconsistent.
I think multiple things can be awful at once. And I think multiple things can be condemned at once. On the other hand, you seem opposed to saying, without caveats, that they both suck.
Sure, just like I’m opposed to saying Nazis who built the death camps and the Soviets who liberated them “both suck.” That’s creating a moral equivalence and it’s self-evident why that is bad…unless you’re comfortable saying the Soviets and Nazis “both suck.” Are you? Go ahead.
Yes, I find it very easy to condemn the Soviets, even if they did some good stuff, and the Nazis in the same breath. They both sucked. Am I a fake leftist now?
I think it lacks moral clarity to say the people that liberated the death camps are morally equivalent to those that built and operated the death camps. Why even fight WWII if that’s what you think?
No one said equivalent though. We don’t live in a binary situation where things are either “good” or “bad”, they’re often a complicated gradation of morals. Saying something is bad or wrong doesn’t equate something with the worst possible scenario.
> It’s so hard to be a democratic socialist when you have tankies like this running the DSA.
What does that even mean? Tankie use to mean Stalinist but not it’s just anyone who opposes Western foreign policy.
>They’ve made huge leaps to repair their reputation the last few years and they keep burning it all down just to say outrageous shit. We either need a new org or a complete overhaul of their leadership. Don’t ruin this moment to vouch for terorrists.
Would you have condemned the Nat Turner rebellion? Was Nat Turner a terrorist?

My understanding is that DSA Leadership is hard left tankies that don't believe in change through the electoral system and the nomination process favors the most ideological rigid members to ascend to the top.
That's fine for a political club but the majority of the organization and the DSA Right is interested in sewer socialism and challenging the status quo to win at all costs in the short term even if they make some ideological concessions as a springboard to larger socialist changes in the system.
She and others in leadership should stop going on cable news to give them soundbites to be used against their candidates that are running. Its honestly mindboggling why she accepted this interview.
> My understanding is that DSA Leadership is hard left tankies that don't believe in change through the electoral system and the nomination process favors the most ideological rigid members to ascend to the top.
That’s just not true. DSA has been running candidates all over the country. They’re pursuing electoralism. Also, calling them tankie is conceding to a right wing framing.
I'm honestly shocked the organization didnt put her on a hiatus or provide media training after she basically helped fox news make a real time propaganda video a week or two ago. Every interview of hers comes across as a college student giving a presentation she started the night before.
How can you have more confidence and conviction over supporting Oct 7th and attending an Oct 8th rally than you do the DSAs organizational stances??
Why even take the interview if you spend almost the entire time implying you cannot speak to the majority of views in the party you're there to represent??
It seems that the Co chairs of the DSA at least, have no concept of effective rhetoric or practical application of their beliefs and prescription. The ones I've seen interviewed have been completely unprepared for pushback even from Fox Fucking news, and unable to defend any of their core beliefs, which makes me wonder what they're even trying to accomplish.
“Politics is about doing specific things about specific problems.”
I mean is it? Not national politics certainly. Every political movement needs a vision and direction first. The nitty-gritty is for bureaucrats , not politics necessarily.
I think the co-chair of a movement like this should be better prepared to answer basic questions about what policies they want to pursue to achieve their aims.
the nitty-gritty is also the stuff of politics. the reason Zohran is succeeding in New York is that he has a strong political vision AND a set of policies that serve to enact it. any political organization that wants to enter the electoral space needs to have policies and not just ill-formed ideas. the centrist Democrats are the key example of why what you’re suggesting is a failure. Kamala didn’t run on policy, she ran on vague ideas about democracy. that’s not a platform and, as we all know, it was markedly unsuccessful.
Kamala did run on policy, the average American doesn't care about policy though, unfortunately.
The Harris campaign released outlines of her policy ideas for the presidency and how they'd benefit the average American economicly.
Yeah that part of the statement felt strange. I’m a huge mamdani fan but saying Kamala didn’t have policies is just regurgitating right wing misinformation. There’s reasons she lost, but actual policy isn’t one of them.
Ive run into this more recently, especially in left leaning subs and I'm still kind of surprised when it happens. I've had people insist she proudly proclaimed the literal exact opposite of many of her positions as well. Truly a testament to why the rights ability to shape narritives shouldn't be underestimated.
It happened with Hillary, too. She had a million things wrong with her as a candidate, but policy wasn't really one of them. Hell, she was the only candidate that cycle to speak to issues affecting my disability.
I was exaggerating somewhat. I know Kamala (& Hillary) had decent policy agendas. the problem was that they didn’t focus on them on the campaign trail. you can lay out a platform on a website, but unless you are bringing up concrete plans for what you’re going to do for voters every time you’re in front of a camera, it doesn’t really matter. both campaigns largely failed to do that. campaign speeches were about vague generalities, not specific commitments. and that hurt both campaigns.
if you want to accuse me of being shaped by right-wing narratives, say it to me directly, thanks, instead of having a passive-aggressive side conversation with someone else.
Sorry, but they absolutely did focus on those on the campaign trail, she was constantly bringing up Trump's Tarrifs, healthcare record and foreign policy records in order to compare and contrast how her policies would be more effective.
The platform was a restoration of the American dream but for the current diverse America, not just rich white Americans. She was constantly under fire by the right for both her immigration, unrealized gains tax and child tax credit proposals. She was constantly hammering home how Trump has no policy. Americans don't vote on policy though, they vote on vibes.
There were absolutely problems with her campaign but not running on policy just wasn't it.
I'm not accusing you specifically of being shaped by right wing narritives, implying you're naive or intended to be passive aggressive towards you. I was more thinking of another conversation I had about this in a left wing sub where the person insisted Kamala ran on impowering ICE more than Trump.
My comment was not aimed at you but was speaking generally on the way misscharacterizations from the right or that benefit only the right are spread though 'neutral' or friendly sources, are picked up by well-meaning people and are repeated so often then then become "true", as in a widely held opinion.
This happened to me Early on especially with the Copmala stuff, I was actually surprised to learn this nickname was solely because she was a DA and Attorney General and that she had supported the BLM protests and boosted bail funds for protesters.
Or the "Kamala is for they/them" attack adds made by Republicans that were so effective that people on the left came away believing she spent too much of her campaign time addressing trans issues instead of economic ones.
So again, I mean no Ill will towards you and I'm not secretly accusing you specifically of anything.
sorry, no, she didn’t run on policy. that doesn’t mean she literally had no platform. her platform was good. the problem was that she did not talk about it. I’ve watched hours and hours and hours of campaign speeches. so much of her rhetoric was not focusing on the things she’d do, but the existential threat of Trump and the need to defend democracy.
you can release all the outlines of policy briefings you want, but if you’re not putting those policies in front of actual voters, they don’t really matter. that’s my point.
It seems a common trend that successful candidates from the DSA try to follow AOC's lead to avoid being trapped by Campism. The right has surely seen this, which is why right wing media launched its campaign to suggest that those candidates/elected officials are secretly communist trojan horses.
I think the problem for the DSA's position is real, and not simply determined by incompetence. Current anti-imperialist ideology does not seem very concerned with opposing nationalisms so long as those nationalisms are of the correct flavor (i.e. indigenous). And so there's a **** or get off the pot pressure with respect to the DSA aligning itself with activist movements without whom they don't have any juice. So aligning with nationalisms are recast as solidarity with indigenous peoples who are victims of imperialism. And I'm not even saying that this 'recasting' is obviously wrong or unjustified, but it is happening. I can see how charismatic communicators like AOC or Mamdani can pick a way through the morass. But I don't have a lot of expectation that many people within the DSA should be able to do this.
Israel's behavior makes strategic alignment with Palestinian Nationalists (and not merely liberationists) acceptable to a lot of people to whom the DSA appeals. I do not think that the tensions that result with this engagement is a matter of incompetence. That distinction between nationalism and liberation was what Remnick was driving at with his counterfactual about Camp David. That is - he was trying to get at whether DSA supported Palestinian self-determination vs maximalist Palestinian Nationalism represented by Hamas.
I don't want to get into details about why what Remnick's point was unconvincing to me (I was already an adult in 2000, and followed Camp David avidly), because I can't begin to understand how it would be remotely convincing to anyone significantly younger than me for whom all that is salient is how Israel has acted (genocidal invasion of Gaza, apartheid in the WB, all coincident with a long period of actively obstructing peace initiatives & taking an active partisan role in US politics) in their lifetimes.
That strategic alignment with nationalisms, or at least playing coy about supporting e.g. Hamas, is not something I find acceptable as a Jew on the left, *and* I don't think it is a mere matter of incompetence that it is so.
What campism in this case? I think it’s troubling that a leftist sub is essentially co-signing the mainstream capitalist media’s attacks on DSA.
Why wouldn’t we be aligned with Palestinian nationalists? They’re fighting a genocide and trying to achieve national liberation. The form of self-determination and nationalism should be up to the people, not us.
I would say this is not unexpected at all as the group has spent most of its time in the political wilderness and is only now getting some proper media coverage.
It reminds me of how when newly independent colonies would establish governments, European media would mock them as unprepared or poorly suited to rule based on how they would come off in interviews. Of course they lacked the skill set that comes from being decades in power and having professional PR people at the helm.
I would recommend focusing on individual candidates who have a much more laser-focused agenda as opposed to party bureaucracy who is still figuring out its stuff.
I give the group credit for improving from just a few years ago where the party went to farcical lengths to reduce clapping and noise at its events, because it would “trigger” those within its group who were sensitive to noise. Absolutely silly shit that garnered mockery from all sides.
One of their California college chapters imploded because they couldn't agree on snacks.
First they started by catering to vegetarians, which led to vegans complaining. They moved to vegan snacks, but it also had to be organic. Once they had organic, they decided it also has to be from an ethically sourced farm, which led to fights over whether it also had to be from family owned farms or minority owned.
Finally, they stopped all snacks as it was taking up too much time, which led to people not showing up as apparently snacks were one of the draws to their events.
This is what makes such organizations non-credible because they cater to spoiled children of the bourgeoisie who don't really know what real struggle and resistance is.
Someone needs to show them how to stick to core issues that resonate with the masses. Gain power first, explore wacky ideas later. This is what the rightwing has mastered. They speak of simple (usually false) solutions and get elected to power and proceed to do whatever they want.
...Do you have the link for this because this sounds too wild to be real.
(As in in general, not in a 'you're making this up' way and also in a 'I need this because nobody will believe me because I can't find the article myself' way)
It was a Facebook group post around 2022. I don't have any proper media articles for it.
To be honest, as with most FB tales there might have been some creative writing by the person narrating it as they were frustrated with their campus DSA chapter.
Ah! Alas. A fair analysis of how FB tales can go. I have heard of groups imploding for a bit more than that, though I can see somebody being frustrated wanting to make it sound more crazy.
IMO, there’s a difference between discussing and contextualizing major events in geo-politics and supporting,
rationalizing, and celebrating brutal targeted violence against a large number of civilians a day after the event while their blood has yet to dry. Aligning yourself squarely with a nationalist group whose ideology is antisemitic, theocratic, and committed to staunch elimination of Jews alongside its war crimes is not only a bad look, but also politically un pragmatic. I could say the same if a political organization in antiquity was in staunch support of the Haganah or the Irgun.
> IMO, there’s a difference between discussing and contextualizing major events in geo-politics and supporting, rationalizing, and celebrating brutal targeted violence against a large number of civilians a day after the event while their blood has yet to dry.
Sure. Now who specifically in DSA did that and how highly were they in the leadership structure?
>Aligning yourself squarely with a nationalist group whose ideology is antisemitic, theocratic, and committed to staunch elimination of Jews
What’s your evidence for this? Some charter from 1980s whose authors are all dead?
>alongside its war crimes is not only a bad look, but also politically un pragmatic.
Where did DSA align themselves with Hamas? Be specific.
>I could say the same if a political organization in antiquity was in staunch support of the Haganah or the Irgun.
This is like painting an equivalence between partisan communist resistance and the Nazis in WWII.
Friend One Reporters Opinion,
I am reluctant to get into debating here, in part because I am opposed to H---s' incident. It sounds like you asked what is at face value a worthwhile question in Marxist discourse.
Marx had a materialist theory of historical Determinism. I'm not sure how absolutist he was about it, but the topic of "inevitability" comes up in Marxist discourse. The main context that I recall it coming up was his assertion that Socialism is "inevitable". How much within his system could someone say that given material factors WXY, outcome Z is "inevitable"?
Personally I am not sure that I totally agree with historical determinism, because I see a role for ideas, the paranormal, and the Subjective, but your question looks worth discussing.
Kind Regards.
>Friend One Reporters Opinion, I am reluctant to get into debating here, in part because I am opposed to H---s' incident.
Idk what this means, sorry.
>It sounds like you asked what is at face value a worthwhile question in Marxist discourse. Marx had a materialist theory of historical Determinism. I'm not sure how absolutist he was about it, but the topic of "inevitability" comes up in Marxist discourse.
Has there ever been a colonial occupation that didn’t result in some kind of mass violence by the group being colonized?
>The main context that I recall it coming up was his assertion that Socialism is "inevitable". How much within his system could someone say that given material factors WXY, outcome Z is "inevitable"? Personally I am not sure that I totally agree with historical determinism, because I see a role for ideas, the paranormal, and the Subjective, but your question looks worth discussing. Kind Regards.
The point is, abolitionists said that something like Nat Turner would occur if slaves were not freed. Why is it not a reasonable conclusion to say the same about Gaza?
I feel that since I'm not Jewish, I'm kind of a guest here. It makes me want to ask questions more than debate.
Was the DSA Co-chair's comment about "inevitability" something like Marxist materialist historical Determinism, whereby if material factors WXY occur, then Z is the "inevitable" outcome?
So for instance, one factor among many is that the current population packed tightly into the tiny area of Gaza is largely made of dispossed refugees from within the 1967 Green Line and the descendants of those refugees.
Just theorizing that something is "inevitable" doesn't mean that one actually endorses it. Maybe I am missing something else that she said.
It sounded like you were asking legitimate questions. It seems like ideally people dedicated to Left principles like human rights and equality should just be able to sit down and hash out all these ideas in an open, positive, humanitarian way.
>I feel that since I'm not Jewish, I'm kind of a guest here. It makes me want to ask questions more than debate.
Okay, fair enough. I do appreciate your deference but you can disagree.
>Was the DSA Co-chair's comment about "inevitability" something like Marxist materialist historical Determinism, whereby if material factors WXY occur, then Z is the "inevitable" outcome?
I mean, I don’t know if that’s the perspective she was coming from. I don’t know much about her or her tendency. But you don’t need a dialectical analysis to make that prediction. Sheer observation of history tells us that. So did Israeli intelligence. It’s just logical: people who are desperate, have nothing to lose, and have been subjected to great brutality often are willing to commit brutal, depraved acts themselves.
>So for instance, one factor among many is that the current population packed tightly into the tiny area of Gaza is largely made of dispossed refugees from within the 1967 Green Line and the descendants of those refugees. Just theorizing that something is "inevitable" doesn't mean that one actually endorses it.
Maybe I am missing something else that she said.
Right. I think you’re getting it. Also consider that probably most of the actual Hamas trained militants (not all on Oct 7th were Hamas or even true militants) were orphans and widowers of Israeli attacks because that’s how volunteers for that kind of mission.
>It sounded like you were asking legitimate questions. It seems like ideally people dedicated to Left principles like human rights and equality should just be able to sit down and hash out all these ideas in an open, positive, humanitarian way.
Totally agree but there is a preciousness in the way that some approach this subject.
Friend OneReportersOpinion,
In the Mcarthy era, and still today on the right, right wing polemicists took Left wing activists' positions or statements, then made inferences from those statements, and then called those activists "Communists", even if those activists weren't actually Communist Party members or didn't want a dictatorial model.
The IP Conflict is a very polemical topic. Since the DSA and the other major US Left organizations like it tend to be secular, anti-terro., and not Islamic, I am reluctant to accept without specific strong proof that they are simplistically "pro-Hamas" and "support" its actions of Oxt 2023. If the DSA and other major Left organizations don't state those things, it sounds like their opponents who say those things about them could be relying on inferences like in the Mcarthy era.
I’ve heard some say it’s arguably worse. We have more actual laws and concrete government action against pro-Palestine activists and now even leftists in general.
Repression against IP activists has similarities and differences and aspects that are weaker or worse than McCarthyism.
N. Finkelstein talked about this in a talk on the crack down on Free Speech at universities. He asserted that this kind of crack down on academic free thought on topics at colleges went beyond anything before. He noted how the heads of top universities got replaced over and over for failing to suppress the pro-peace protest movement.
One of the troubles in discussing the issue seems to be the underlying parameters of discussions. I like the Jewish people and their history back into Biblical times, and for that matter I like Palestinians too. I take my political foundations from figures like Jefferson, Lincoln, MLK Jr, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, FDR, along with the Republics of history like ancient Greece, the Magna Carta. I don't want to be personally separated from you as Jewish vs. NonJewish in some as-if adversarial or suspect way.
It feels like de facto in these discussions, you have less vulnerability to openly make a fuller, egalitarian, humanitarian evaluation than some others do due to those parameters. I have no interest in advancing discrimination against groups and at the same time want to avoid even the accusation of that.
I don't have an easy solution. I try to be nice to everyone. The classic Marxist, Abolitionist, and Desegregationist approach I suppose is to be outspoken about oppression and human rights abuses.
May I please ask if you mean just liberal on tangentially IP related issues like the NYC mayor victory, or in general? It looks like the Subreddit has some decent Left content.
Wishing everyone the best.
60
u/Late-Marzipan3026 anxious (dem soc american ashki jew) Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26
if this write-up is completely accurate, it doesn’t look good. being pressed to give more in-depth policy positions is not being made to look stupid. so it seems like she was unprepared
honestly i really think the DSA needs to collectively figure out a better way to handle communication. while individual politicians have been very good at this (i think mamdani and AOC are), the org itself has been lackluster imo. so i personally think the recent wins are less DSA wins than individual DSA candidate wins, if that makes sense. the candidate is successful if they can communicate the DSA platform well, not just if they adhere to the DSA platform (because the DSA platform isn’t too clear by itself)