ll admit, I had a lot of reservations at the outset of this...¶

I'll admit, I had a lot of reservations at the outset of this article, but it's more nuanced than it first appears. I still have disagreements that I'll lay out further down in this thread, but overall, the analysis is fairly accurate. https://t.co/uvFHot5esd I initially chafed at the mentioning of the size of DSA, since such a figure is largely irrelevant to the prospects of a project seeking to begin reproducing communists. Size matters during later stages, but we first have to surpass the hurdle of ideological incoherence. I think we can all agree that the millions of members boasted by the Democratic Party do not entice us in the slightest, because we are all aware that the organization's ideological character completely precludes any internal movement.

But this article doesn't make that error. It is completely clear-eyed about the fact that the bulk of DSA's membership is not some revolutionary or revolutionary-potential mass, waiting to be organized toward productive ends, but rather politically-naïve workers and a dominant contingent of counter-revolutionaries. It acknowledges that the newly-developing consciousness among the bulk of new members is being deliberated stunted by these rightist elements, and that this is something that will continue unabated without the influence of ideologically-developed cadres. It even highlights that it is exactly that nascent political awareness that makes this contingent vulnerable to ideological malpractice, given that the reactionaries preying on them know exactly how to encourage their most misplaced instincts and smother their best ones. Where I disagree is in the characterization of the DSA as essentially being a "blank slate," where internal organization is able to flourish, due to its lack of ideological infrastructure.

Yes, the organization makes no explicit political demands of its members. However... This seemingly laissez-faire approach is a mirage. Liberalism is hegemonic in the DSA, and its influence on the mass of members goes far beyond organizational programming. It manifests in every interaction a member has with the organization, spreading passively and inexorably. Positions of influence within the org are overwhelmingly held by opportunists and those solidly regimented into liberal ideology. They are national and local leaders, rank-and-file mentors, drinking buddies, etc. all passing around "common sense" nuggets of liberal wisdom. Even the most politically advanced members are often mired in unchallenged misconceptions. They're held back by counter-revolutionary pessimism, liberal myths about revolutionary history, or misplaced instincts to negotiate with those they fail to identify as enemies. The article is absolutely correct to assert that isolated individuals cannot hope to make any headway in these conditions. The DSA, even without enforcing operational demands of member ideology, is nevertheless a powerful riptide of liberalism that drags down hapless swimmers. The solution proposed by the article is to first form tight-knit, explicitly revolutionary primary organizations, which can weather the ideological battering. This is also a correct assertion.

However, it makes the entire article feel a bit temporally out of place. Forming these organizations has been and still remains THE foremost priority of the movement. Positioning this crucial step as essentially being a precondition for reaching DSA members feels like a conflation, swapping cause and effect in the sequence of revolutionary organizing. We need to build these organizations. We need to root them in Marxist principles. We need them to be able to reproduce revolutionaries. We need them to grow their capacity and scope. Somewhere along the way, we might want to bring over DSA members. But that is a side project. DSA is not the locus of revolutionary organizing. It is, at best, a networking opportunity, on the same scale as schmoozing with liberal nonprofits.

On the whole, I think this article does a fair job demonstrating the dangers of individuals attempting to "work from the inside."