Thanks for posting

DSA has a strong Twitter presence with local chapters

I will have to learn more about them - here is the link to their site: http://www.dsausa.org/

Doesn't matter how little they know about it, their kneejerk reaction makes the word political poison.

I do not think the Democratic Party should become a socialist party - I do think it should be a party that is home to socialists and non-socialists.

World turned upside down.

have changed us as a people. We have lost our sense of fairness and real understanding of e pluribus unum. It's all about get yours before someone else does.

He says the same thing about his religious beliefs, if only the people of America and the world would embrace toxic European centered Christianity, the society and the planet would survive!

If the socialists have so much support and so many thousands, why don't they form their own party?

...a Democratic Socialist party taken shape from the policies of the New Deal. We have our party and we are taking it back.

What was the tax rate under FDR?

Depending on whether we are taxing middle income or top earners. Eisenhower famously had the highest marginal tax rates at 90%.

1945:
Total number of income tax brackets: 24
# of brackets only affecting income over the equivalent of $250K (2012 dollars): 14
# of brackets only affecting income the equivalent of $500K (2012 dollars): 9
Top bracket affects income over: $2,551,044.

...and it doesn't get more true in the re-telling.

FDR was not a Socialist. The New Deal was aimed at making reforms to save free market capitalism.

Nor was FDR a nativist. He was an internationalist.

Nor was FDR a populist. He was an anti-populist.

Those attempting to wrap themselves in the mantle of FDR (who was a hero of the modern Democratic Party) are trying to steal and falsify his true legacy, which was being a great liberal who opposed populist-nativist demagoguery.

He was a Democratic Socialist, which is what he had called himself and what most historians would also refer to him as.

FDR was a great liberal. Don't try to steal his legacy on a Democratic Party forum.

During the primaries. You have had much success yet but who knows.

Good luck with that.

We will need all the luck we can get. And you know, volunteers, contributions, etc

This isn't your party, and if you wish your own, please take all those people and create your own, why the need to threaten the actual modern Democratic party that's filled with people who you feel the need to convert by force, attack, abuse and otherwise irritate?

If you don't like us, then be off with you. FDR didn't like many of the backbone and the grassroots of the modern Democratic Party, either. Bye now!

Democratic socialism by definition is giving control of the means of labor to workers. That is where "democratic" comes from. if you support unions on any major level, you do just happen to be supporting democratic socialism and would need to be escorting yourself from the Democratic Party with me, if you feel it has no place in our party

the ideals of the 40's, and a man of his time who was himself rather racist.

Democratic with a small "d" doesn't give a group of people the right to "take over" so they may shove their beliefs down everyone else's throat. The Democratic part also involves allowing people to have a voice, and everything we're seeing from these supposed DSA people seems to be about silencing and forcing out those who don't agree with them.

I have no problem with democratic socialism, I'm just wondering why the more militant among them, like the DSA feels the need to "take over" a party that doesn't agree with their stances and who don't like the abuse they're hurtling at us.

The DSA people are not about small d democracy, they seem to about some sort of violent wrenching of the party from the people it currently hosts, who do support unions but find the DSA to be obnoxious, atrocious and not reflective of who we are as a party.

I feel that this level of religious junta doesn't belong in the party, and if they hate us so much, they can have their little meetings and set up a party that better reflects them since they don't like the Democratic Party or the people that make it up.

Proselytization with this type of rhetoric isn't terribly democratic, nor is it Democratic, and anyone who thinks this is a good idea, should DemExit like they've been threatening to do.

Harassment, abuse and violent rhetoric isn't how one makes a convincing argument, it's why Robertson is a ridiculous joke, and paraphrasing him is such a joke.

Not sure of what molitancy you are referring to but understanding what we are large D or small, is certainly a start towards rebuilding a tarnished economy from the ground up.

fend of ignorance of the topic of discussion here, which is not the concept of unions which you defined democratic socialism.

Not sure why you keep ignoring the DSA, or the actual words the OP wrote, but I guess it's difficult to defend either the proselytization, the militancy or the organization so instead the concept is preferred, but that's not the topic here.

If the DSA wants their own party, let them create one and then convince people that they have an actual plan to do something, because all this vagueness and not having an actual plan was rejected by Democrats, including unions and union members who prefer having actual workable policies rather than esoteric discussions about concepts that no one is debating or denying.

Try to understand what the DSA is and why Democrats don't wish to be converted and taken over as the OP has stated.

Not sure why we need to be identical to 1945 where white men had all the power in the party and women and POC had no voice.

the word meant! Must be sad when your vocabulary is so poor that your brain can't make out a word with a letter omitted accidentally. Symptom of brain damage.

a misspelled word, but I lack brain lesions so I can figure out what words mean. When it's something that can go either way, I tend to ask. This guy was like "there's a letter missing, what are you even saying, what is word?1?!" Before falling asleep. Narcoleptic perhaps?

this country, and the 50% of white male union members who vote Republican.

Though I suppose they fit well with a kind of socialism that invites libertarians into its "big tent."

My Democratic Party membership is worth EXACTLY as much as yours. My vote is worth the same as yours, too. The D after my name is the same as yours.

If you don't like where the other Democrats are taking the party, why don't YOU start your own political party?

should just sit down and shut up as they violate the basic principles of our party?

I'm glad you've understood that my vote has worth, the way people are speaking these days, it seems that it's not. The D after my name is the same as yours, but I'm not seeking to shove my zealotry down your unwilling throat. Nor am I the one insisting that I was going to "DemExit" if I didn't get my way.

I'm fine with where Democrats are, that's why *I* a not the one militantly staging a takeover with my 5 friends. I have no need to start my own political party, that's what the DSA is trying to do, because apparently they don't give my vote, my membership or my voice any importance, we just need to shut up and let them do whatever they want 'cause they're taking over somehow.

I quite agree, if these people hate Democrats and the party so much, they can go off and start their own party, I'm not ceding anything to their little tantrums.

Also, I am not the one who's attacking Democrats, YOU who defend the DSA and non party members who attack Democrats are, so unhappy with us, the base? You don't have to be here.

There's a LOT of people on the REAL socialist left that are asking the same question.

so their ideals will never be put in practice. Thus they are free to say whatever they want since there is no risk of actually having to be responsible for it ever failing.

Why try to take what belongs to others, unless you're afraid you can't be successful on your own merits.

Most want a workers' party. One that is openly and unabashedly on the side of the working class with no hedging. They figure that an actual workers' party would wind up socialist soon enough. Class struggle would assure it.

Not government control. If you don't believe in democratic socialism you probably aren't a fan of unions either. If you are a strong supporter of unions, it is possible there may be a misconception of what democratic socialism is.

what's under discussion. This organization, the DSA is, if you're a fan of them and the things they've been out there saying, you probably aren't a fan of Democrats or the people who make up the party and do all the work. If you're still arguing it's about union support, it's possible you haven't been paying attention to what the DSA has been up to and why it's not something that many of us are going to tolerate in our party.

They can keep that nastiness and their need to "take over" and convert us all to their true faith, and make up their own party. There are ever so many of them after all, they can do their own thing.

A strong grassroots democratic socialist campaign may be their last hope. This may be their last hope -whatever you perception of DSA is. I get what yourl are saying actually and I understand there needs to be a bridge in the divide of a lot of the horrible rhetoric I have been seeing on either side of any debate within our tent. I am unaware of other demogoguery you point out, but I don't doubt it exists somewhere in the depths of one of these movements. I won't support nastiness if this is what that group represents.


I will support solid democratic socalialist proposals that create true conomic and social justice. That might not come for DSA, but an attempt to educate ourselves on what truly these terms mean and represent is important. That is what this party is about on many levels. I hope regardless of where it comes from -minus any nastiness, we embrace those principals for our party once again.

And if they did they could join this party with all these DSA people. My perception is based on the things they're actually saying and the religious zealotry found in the OP's militant Roberstonian approach.

Nope, there is not both siderism here, the DSA specifically is out there attacking Democrats, in vile ways. Excusing them by accusing the people they're attacking of equivalent behavior just fails on so many levels.

You might wish to go see what they and their flowered followers are up to, it's all over their twitter, their various chapters, on FB and IRL. This group is acting out in ways that don't have anything to do with unions or the concept of democratic socialism as it relates to unions.

Sadly, their proposals won't do any of that, it's what makes them so shouty and brings on this militant "we're going to take over" and "convert or else!"

The principles they're espousing don't seem to have much to do with our party, the one's they're pushing that is, if they'd stop with the tantrums they'd realize that our party hasn't abandoned any of the things that they've put on the back burner.

Attacking liberals, Dems, progressives et al. to try to bring down capitalism is just silly.

If these guys want to make their own party with their 20,000 people, more power to them. Just leave the rest of us alone who don't think their policies are serious or workable.

Work with us, but stop the abuse the threats and the stomping of the foot to "take over and accept our religion"! The OP was doing just that. They're not interested in debate, in cooperation or accomplishing anything, it's just divisive flame throwing and nothing more.

Now it is 12%. And that decline has only continued over the years...

And why compare to 1945 and use these %ages, large percentages in 1945 had a great many other things as well, that we don't have as much in 2017, several decades and a change in the manufacturing economy will have some effect.

Why in 1945 the percentage of households that had a computer or a cell phone was very tine, now it's a greater percent, and that increase has only continued over the years.

Really a pointless comment that has no bearing on the discussion about the DSA and their supposed swollen numbers which don't seem to be about figuring out how to do anything other than attack Democrats.

We've got work to do, if they don't wish to help, then they may run off and rant and rail at whomever they wish, just get out of the way. We're dealing with some shit right now and don't have time for this nonsense by this group.

Thank you for your time

instead of veering off into esoterica and comparisons between now and the 40's.

If you can't debate the points being discussed, it's clear that meaningful debate or debate at all is not the point.

Can I have it back and do you have anything to say about the debate you interrupted with the strawmen?

As far as people swarming to join, up until the election their best YEAR of enrollment was about 1200. This is a country of ~330 million! After the election they got roughly 12,000-13,000. BFD!

They're a fringe organization that in 40 years have gained very little, if any, traction. Espousing their "importance" is highly questionable.

12 to 13,000? Wow. That's just really sad.

...perhaps they already have.

Does this include an obligation to work if able, enforceable by the state?

Not the state. Democratic socialism by definition is giving control of the means of production to labor (i.e. Unions). If you support unions you are inadvertently supporting democratic socialism.

Yes, socialism is a key part of the resistance to fascism and always has been!

and the people who live with the ruin in Venezuela.

We don't need more populist demagogues undermining progress and liberalism. That's the wrong path.

And,

I'd make an appointment with a neurologist ASAP. Normally functioning brains don't usually have a difficult time with figuring out text.

Robertsonian in every way it seems.

Democratic Socialist and what you are referring to.

Which are the foundation for any form of democratic socialism.

It must be frustrating to equate two wholly different political parties from two wholly different nations with two wholly different platforms, and from that, prophecy demagogues from one to the other.

In the field of critical thought, that's the wrong path.

..different sets of demographics and religious makeups.

It seems intentional -although it could very well be an honest misunderstanding of the term.

Socialism.

And it's right there in the name, so youo are NEVER going to convince me DSA included that in the name without undrerstanding the meaning of the word.

So no, I will fight them to my dying breath.

and let me know how that works out for you...

You might be thinking of 'Democratic Socialist' - big difference...

The results will be the same either way

Is definitely beginning to sing that tune, strong supporter of unions, won't take outside cash and is outpolling Cruz in early surveys in Texas. So far so good!

From recent members with low post counts

Please point out all the low post counts, and explain what that means to you. We were all new here once.

Are you suggesting I violate the TOS of du?

Maybe the movement could benefit from a makeover.

Many good aspects, things most Americans support, but the name has too many negative connotations.

Yes, many Americans are afraid of 'words' which they do not know the meaning...

Actually, though, I don't think it's purely about intelligence. Even smart people are susceptible to sensationalist manipulation, and the enemies of the common good take full advantage of that.

Yes, even smart decent people are susceptible to propaganda...

It also seems like you are trolling a Democratic forum with a DSA agenda.

No thank you.

The Democratic Socialism is Democratic. It is basically the views and policies of FDR - an extremely good thing.

Do you think we are that stupid comrade?

socialism, despite all those capitalists who wrote it.

The comedy of the contortions is immense.

Excellent read

I disagree with the socialist left on a number of things, but at the same time I think the popularity of socialism in this country can be a good thing. The populist and socialist movements eventually pushed the Democratic Party to the left under FDR who adopted many of their ideas.

It is good to have an active left-wing movement in this country to counter the right. My only concern is that they don't go overboard and make the perfect the enemy of the good. I sometimes see this with online leftists who seem to attack Democrats more than Republicans and say stuff like "both parties are the same." Aside from being factually incorrect it promotes a kind of counterproductive anti-politics where anyone who isn't 100 percent on your side is thrown to the wolves. Not a smart thing to do especially if your side is weaker and poorer than the opposition.

Both the early women's groups fighting for suffrage and the early labor movement in the 19th century grew out of socialist roots.

I watched that movie Suffragette - it was about the women's vote in England starting in the 1900s (1905 I think + or minus a few years). Then in 1918 women in England 'won' the right to vote. They indicated that the American women's voting rights grew out of that.

women were organizing and becoming active for multiple causes; many of the groups working for those causes were socialist groups. Not only were they working for suffrage, but also for immigrant rights, labor rights, and more access to education for women.

The first women's rights convention in Seneca falls was in 1848, which resulted, of course, in the "Declaration of Sentiments" patterned after the Declaration of Independence:

http://www.womensrightsfriends.org/pdfs/1848_declaration_of_sentiments.pdf

Frederick Douglas was there. He was a strong supporter of women’s rights, both before and after he supported the 15th amendment even though it excluded women. He originally worked with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony on universal suffrage. My point being, of course, that American women were active fighters long before 1918.

And my apologies for suggesting that women started only in the 1900s.

need, lol. I'm finishing up another masters (in U.S. History,) and this happened to be a focus of one of my recent courses.

Certainly not Seneca Falls and Not Frederick Douglass. The Seneca Falls declaration used the language of the Declaration of Independence. Why not call Thomas Jefferson and George Washington socialists while you're at it?

And if socialism has become redefined as support for women's rights, why do we see so much effort to undermine those rights now?

Socialists did not emerge in significant numbers until after the Russian Revolution, the vast majority of them outside the US. Most labor unions in the late 19th and early 20th century were led by anarcho-syndicalists. As socialists began to gain dominance in labor unions outside the US, here they, along with anarchists, where arrested and deported. From the Palmer Raids through McCarthyism, socialist were purged from labor unions, universities, government, and other areas of public life. Why do you think so few Americans read Marx, standard in liberal education throughout Europe and Latin America?

To present a middle-class movement like Seneca Falls as socialist is ridiculous. Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey weren't socialists either, but that didn't mean their resistance wasn't important.

We've seen a full on effort to make the term socialist as anodyne as possible. I fail to see the point. We haven't seen any proposals that take on inequality or capital. We see populism, but not socialism. Populism accommodates and serves capital. Socialism has historically challenged it. But even recent populists who have emerged in the US have relied overwhelmingly on the middle-and upper-middle class for their support. In fact, much of it is more nationalist than anything. We've seen rhetoric aimed at banks and corporations but actions directed at the poor, women, and people of color.

I fail to see the point of using the term socialism to advance a series of bourgeois, restorationist demands, none of which address inequality or challenge capital. Do you think there is some political leverage in calling middle class movements and demands socialist? Or is it something participants in these groups dream up to make themselves feel better about advancing so myopically their own narrow class/race/gender interests?

'cause there always seems to be money at the apex at so many organizations.

Fair compensation for interns? "Brand ambassador" recruitment and activities?

Rent for a suite of offices in a prewar building located in the Financial District of lower Manhattan?
https://42floors.com/us/ny/new-york/75-maiden-ln

They do have a Swag Shop.
https://dsausa.nationbuilder.com/swagshop

There's some fine print at the bottom of the page.

DSA was concerned to find out that the company that provides our website and online organizing infrastructure, NationBuilder, had as a client the Trump campaign and other right-wing candidates. Progressives built this kind of infrastructure and tools for digital organizing and we have now lost that organizing edge. We are moving to identify other options for a CMS/CRM. As an under-resourced, member funded organization, this move will take time for us to carry out, but it is an important statement for us to make.

Not sure why they're not tax deductible, but if they're asking for donations the Flat Iron District won't do.

As ultra rich socialists (sounds kind of funny doesn't it), I wonder if they contribute to their own organization.

centrist party in Denmark, not a socialist one. There are Social Democrat parties in may countries around the world. They sit at the center of the political spectrum, with socialist and communist parties to their left. The PM of Denmark denounced Sanders claim that his country was socialist. https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

Rassmussen, PM of Denmark spoke before the Kennedy School and objected to Sanders pointing to his country as an example of socialism:

1.5% that of the United States.

It has a population of less than 6 million people. About 90% of their people are Danish born, more than 95% are Caucasian, about 97% are Christian, and 87% live in urban areas.

How anyone could compare the United States to Denmark is beyond me.

The fact that Democratic Socialism succeeds in Denmark has no bearing on how Democratic Socialism could or could not work in the United States.

Thank you George.

Denmark has a social democracy and, as its PM pointed out, a market economy, not a planned one.

....American so-called "Democratic Socialists".

My Danish friends don't get why so many Americans insist on portraying them as something they are not. I run up there every so often, and this hasn't changed much in recent years. They object to being called socialists of any stripe, except for those actually belonging to parties specifically advocating it.

...a Democratic Socialist believes in a social democracy.

If they WERE social democrats dedicated to a market economy, they would embrace the label and coordinate with social democrats worldwide. A socialist by definition does not support a market economy, but rather a more stringent control by the state, and this has never yet worked.

You are forgetting the 'Democratic' part of Democratic Socialist.

Our Constitution basically describes a social democracy.

for that matter.

(they weren't or aren't all in DSA, but they are part of the traditions DSA draws from)

Eugene Debs
Norman Thomas
Helen Keller
A. Philip Randolph
I.F. Stone
Gloria Steinem
Ron Dellums
Barbara Lee
Dolores Huerta
Michael Harrington
Phil Ochs
Harvey Milk

To name but a few.

And I respect his rhetorical prowess as nothing short of formidable, I also talked with him quite a bit about the upcoming campaign in 2015, and he seemed to think Sanders was the new messiah and could utter no wrong.

I have seen and lived next door to regimes that have called themselves "socialist" in one form or another. There was the "Socialist Unity Party" of the former East Germany, which later changed their name to "Party of Democratic Socialism." These were the people who unapologetically shot people at the Berlin Wall. Lovely characters. I visited East Germany while they were in power. Soldiers patrolling the cities doing the old Nazi goose stepping. Very quaint.

Then there were the milder forms of socialism as practiced under France's two socialist presidents, Mitterand and Hollande. They both drove France's economy downward, instituted terror raids on middle class small businesses with a goal of "don't come back without having found some grounds to fine them."

This IS what happens when Socialists gain power. It heads in the direction of absolute power, and it DOES corrupt absolutely, just as it does under a Trump regime. I put forth no theories, just personal observations. The angrier the rhetoric, whether Trump or Corbyn or Honecker, the worse I think people will regret their leader--those that open their eyes, anyway.

I'm all ears to new ideas, but not empty rhetoric. Everywhere I have been where the ruling party has endorsed some kind of "socialism," it has turned out badly for the governed (those governing did just fine of course--everyone has read "Animal Farm" and knows the script). Unions are a force for good when they function as intended: George Meaney, not Jimmy Hoffa. But in practice, socialism never ends up as democratic, and I think it is exaggerated optimism to think this will change.

I don't think the Democratic Party was, is, or should be a socialist party. That said, it's a party of socialists and non-socialists. I think socialists can play an important role in struggling for progressive changes.