Whenever there’s an increase of discontent against the effects of capitalism, left electoralism will grow and will probably grow much faster than something like the IWW. It’s easier, and more accessible to people. Their message is simple and seems achievable. We all know this.We shouldn't write off folk joining the DSA, just like we shouldn't (not that I've really seen this anyway) write off people joining Momentum and getting behind Corbyn, or left-nationalism in Scotland.
I think this is based on a (slight) misunderstanding of the DSA which took me a while to figure out.
The DSA isn't a political party, and it has no official connection to the Democrats. This is how you end up with the DSA Libertarian Socialist Caucus and the DSA Communist Caucus. And various anarchists, Trots, Leninists have joined it without any intention of getting involved in the electoral activity that most/all DSA leadership (national and local) appear to be focused on. I think someone on here described it to me as more like the old Students for a Democratic Society than anything else.
Someone joining Momentum or the SNP is obviously committed to electoral politics (even if they justify it to themselves via some kind of short-term tactical position or whatever), there is a much looser relationship with the DSA.
This means there are a lot of people (let's for argument's sake say high hundreds or low thousands out of 20,000+) who are 1. not electoralist 2. have decided to join an organisation that engages in electoralism for whatever reasons. I think part of this is entryism, part of it maybe lack of other local alternatives to get involved with locally.
I agree that people in the three groups shouldn't be written off, people do change their politics. But the specific issue with the DSA is that people are joining it pragmatically who would have more or less the same criticisms of it as an organisation that all of us on this thread would, but have joined anyway.
i.e. it's not an electoralism vs. syndicalism decision, or a social democracy vs. anarchism decision, or even a reformism vs. revolution decision, it's that the DSA, mostly in spite of its actual politics and orientation, has managed to become a focus of activism (including things like anti-fascism, ICE blockades, tenant organising) in some places.
Where I've seen anarchists joining Labour, it's been accompanied either via some intellectual gymnastics ('scaling up') or brutal realpolitik (harm-reduction least worst-ism compared to May at best, careerism at worst). Plan C's Labour discussions have reflected some of these positions: https://libcom.org/forums/announcements/plan-c-website-launched-check-it.... It's represented a shift away from revolutionary politics altogether.
These intellectual gymnastics aren't required to join the DSA, so it's not a case of ideological differences in the general sense, but quite specific questions about things like organising outside the workplace, attitudes to entryism, whether the grassroots of DSA will eventually be able to democratise the local and national structures or whether there'll be a purge of the ultra-lefts by the leadership, whether the greener new membership types will get pulled leftwards by the grassroots or into electoralism for the Democrats by the leadership, whether there's a massive split etc.
If the high hundreds/low thousands non-electoralists who agree with the preamble had joined the IWW instead, then it wouldn't have been a load of electoralists joining, but it probably would have included a lot of people who want to do migrant solidarity, anti-fascism, tenant organising etc.
You can think all those people are wasting their time in the DSA I'd probably agree with you - there are so many massive scandals almost weekly and different factions attacking each other something will probably come to a head soonish. But also I think it's worth having an straightforward as possible discussion about why they've ended up there.
With Momentum in the UK, everything about it is electoralism/Labour focused so unless people leave, they're probably in it because that's what they want to do.
* What would winning look like in this context?
* To what extent did the J20 arrests and repression stun the union?
* For a while, it did seem like the IWW members were at the forefront of challenging the alt-right. Did this stop being the case because of the more conservative faction of the union? How could they do that?
* Why are we talking in the past tense? There might have been a spike in interest after Trump got elected but there will be other opportunities.
* Membership growth is only one measurement of success. Where do you think the best organising efforts are happening, or where should they be happening?
FWIW Juan, you’ve done an amazing job contributing to libcom, even if you no longer share the same politics.