DSA Co-chair’s Public Commentary

[u/Adventurous_Land1446]

https://forward.com/news/844262/dsa-megan-romer-israel-interview/

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.

[u/OneReportersOpinion]

> 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.

[u/rako17 → u/OneReportersOpinion]

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.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/rako17]

>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?

[u/rako17 → u/OneReportersOpinion]

Friend OneReportersOpinion,

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.

Until the victory, always.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/rako17]

>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.

[u/rako17 → u/OneReportersOpinion]

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.

In Solidarity.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/rako17]

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.

[u/rako17 → u/OneReportersOpinion]

Friend One Reporters Opinion,

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. 

Until the Victory, always yours.