Jump to content

Talk:Democratic Socialists of America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.215.219.189 (talk) at 04:18, 1 March 2021 (→‎Political Position). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clarifying that DSA is an Organization--Not a Political Party

The title of Section 3.1, "Party Media" should be changed to "Organizational Media", as DSA is an organization--not a political party. For the same reason, the sentence "Left-wing quarterly magazine Jacobin is also considered to be very close to the party, as its editor Bhaskar Sunkara is a DSA member; however, there is no official affiliations between the magazine and DSA" should be changed so that the word "party" is removed and replaced with the word "organization". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyodie (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The difference between "political party" and "political organization" is usually slim (nevermind in the US where, while de facto there are only two parties, both of these could be split into various different groups...); and this group has actively campaigned, endorsed candidates and has had some of it's members elected... (all characteristic of a political party...) Of course, if there are independent sources which refer to this grouping as only an organization and not a party, then this could be changed. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: can you give me a little more color on this? When I saw this edit request my instinct was to approve it and change the wording as the word "party" is only mentioned in reference to political parties in relation to the DSA. Do a quick power search of the word across the article. This seems like you're asking the editor to prove a negative. Just curious to what your thoughts are. Thanks! Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DonSpencer1: I was going out on a limb based on what I describe above ("this group has actively campaigned, endorsed candidates and has had some of it's members elected... (all characteristic of a political party...)"). Also, the group is described as having roots in various political parties, and based on what I know of American politics, this appears to be something akin to a branch (albeit independent) of the Democratic party. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 15:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's certainly confusing. I mean this organization has a "youth wing" which only political parties typically have. But in my reading of the sources, particularly this one from NPR I just ran across, its more of a "group" with "chapters" than a traditional political party. It has a complex interplay with political parties, e.g. the Democratic Party, but when I contrast what the DSA is ("an organization of democratic socialist, social democratic and labor-oriented members in the U.S") with what Political party#Structure says the DSA looks like more of a advocacy group-hybrid, i.e. an organization. You can make the final call – I'm from Spain so my knowledge of U.S. politics is not terribly strong. Just thought I'd share my thoughts as this seems to be a larger issue with the article.
Update: From Vox: "Is DSA a political party?" "No." – anyway still your call. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 15:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article to remove these references; replacing the "media" header with "Publications". The other one I have changed per request since, well, organization is relatively close in meaning to party (a party is an organization...). RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a good move – thanks! Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 16:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political position

In the infobox, we currently have it as Left wing. This from The New Yorker has it as Far-left, in the opening para. Now the New Yorker can most definitely not be described as a conservative publication, and Wikipedia’s own article on that magazine has it that "According to Pew Research, 77 percent of The New Yorker's audience hold left-of-center political values". Their prime ideologue Michael Harrington was a Marxist. We have it already that the DSA see the "abolition of capitalism and the realization of socialism as a gradual long-term goal". But the abolition of capitalism is the policy goal of the far-left and not that of mere left wing politics. Therefore, far-left it should be. Boscaswell talk 04:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your source actually uses both the terms "hard-left" and "left-wing," but doesn't use the term far left. It's not by the editorial board of the New Yorker either, but by a contributing writer. Generally we would use political science textbooks rather than terms used by journalists. TFD (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the abolition of capitalism a goal confined to the far left? Even our article on the far left just says "Groups that advocate for revolutionary anti-capitalism and anti-globalization have been characterized as far-left." Basically you are saying that if you want a socialist society you are far left, and that's just not correct. Which is probably why Socialism doesn't say it's far left. And I haven't begun to discuss the BLP issues for such a small group of people. Ah, and being a Marxist definitely doesn't make you far left. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”Ah, and being a Marxist definitely doesn't make you far left.” Hahaha. Karl Marx’s most famous work was 'The Communist Manifesto'. Boscaswell talk 23:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, TFD you are correct, that article in The New Yorker does not have the DSA as being far-left, but would you not agree that the term hard-left is to all intents and purposes one and the same. It is used as the opening description of the DSA - in the very first paragraph. One of the characteristics of various far-left and left wing groups is the use of entryism, another is downplaying their long-term intentions by way of softening their self-description. Wikipedians need to be cogniscent of the latter, because it is happening in a lot of articles. Unfortunately, there are even some admins in on the act.Boscaswell talk 23:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boscaswell: I'm afraid that you don't seem to know much about Marxism today. Or entryism, which is basically a Trotskyist methodology. As for hard left, I disagree. See Hard left - hard vs soft left, not far left, which is a huge difference. We can't interpret meanings in any case. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DSA is a left to far left organization. There are elements of reform and revolution within it. Those who take Marxism seriously would be considered far-left and those who seek mainly reforms would be considered left.--User:Namiba 15:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I am getting irritated by editors who seem to have some sort of what I'd call a stereotypical view of Marxism rather than a real world views. There are for instance plenty of academics who use Marxist methods of analysis without wanting to overthrow the government. Then of course there's the need for reliable sources. Without those you can't add content to the article. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Supreme Court of the U.S. drew a distinction between "advocacy of forcible overthrow as an abstract doctrine and advocacy of action to that end." (Yates v. United States 1957) So there' a difference between Communists who believe the working class will seize control of the U.S. long after we're all gone and people carry out terrorist actions to kickstart the revolution. Also a major strand of Marxism was Marxist revisionism which was the official ideology of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. It held that socialism was about the movement not the ideology. The purpose of their party was to represent the interests of working people, rather than the elites. That meant working within the constitutional system to get the best possible outcomes for their supporters. TFD (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the infobox include seats held?

The infobox of the article currently does not list the number of seats held by the group. However, List of Democratic Socialists of America members who have held office in the United States lists them in its infobox, and while the DSA is not technically a political party, it does endorse candidates, and have members who hold office.

There are also prior examples of such inclusion occurring, such as Vermont Progressive Party showing they hold one US senate seat in Vermont (even though the person holding the seat is not technically a member of the party).

@Muboshgu: (ping from our discussion on your talk page)

Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't hold any seats and providing a number would be misleading. O3000 (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should the numbers be removed from the infobox on the page List of Democratic Socialists of America members who have held office in the United States? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That should be discussed there WP:OTHERCONTENT. O3000 (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I was unaware of that guideline. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They should not be listed anywhere. DSA is not a political party. It nominates no candidates. It endorses candidates, usually in the Democratic Party.--User:Namiba 01:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This argument depends heavily on how you define a political party. Anyway: Considered a political party or not, they are political, and they organize members who hold office. So yes, these members should also be counted. --Madglad (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of political groups endorse candidates, including the NRA, unions, the Tea Party LGBT groups. Are they political parties? TFD (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the US context, a political party is a group that calls itself a party and places its candidates on the ballot with the label of that party. DSA does neither. It does not call itself a party and candidates who are DSA members run as Democrats or as independent candidates or perhaps on the Peace and Freedom ticket or something. "Seats held" is not appropriate for a group that is not a party. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the DSA is not a political party and does not contest elections, number of seats held should not be mentioned. Note too that not everyone they endorse is a member. They for example endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. TFD (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the "seats held" section is back, it seems like the consensus here was to not include it. Additionally, it says the group has a member in the US Senate which is unsourced and untrue. (Bernie Sanders is not a member and DSA has no association with his senate campaign). Since I'm new here I don't want to unilaterally make the edit, but someone should remove that section. Netx444 (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again. TFD (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Status

Due to the political nature of the organization I believe the page should be semi protected in order to decrease possible vandalism. I would like feedback to this before I formally propose page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert257 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are protected to prevent active disruption. Per WP:NO-PREEMPT, they are almost never preemptively protected. Grayfell (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political Position

According to Politico in this article, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/12/aoc-ocasio-corteznew-york-city-394021, the DSA is far-left. The article describes AOC as being backed by the far-left, and then says she is backed by the DSA and WFP. If that could mean anything else I'm certainly not aware of it. This Vox article (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/5/15930786/dsa-socialists-convention-national) describes the DSA as being "radical left," which just means far-left (as supported by Wikipedia, which has a disambiguation page to far-left). Conservative sources like Influence Watch (https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/democratic-socialists-of-america/) and Manhattan Institute (https://www.city-journal.org/socialist-surge-in-local-government) describe it as far-left, which should be taken into account unless Wikipedia is just openly denying conservative sources at this point. When I added said information, it was taken down for reasons not explained. There isn't even a citation for the current position, which is accepted as the norm.--66.215.219.189 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are using the term in a relative sense, that is, relative to the mainstream of the two major parties. They're not far left in a universal scale. Socialist Alternative for example is more left-wing than the DSA. TFD (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? And since when does Wikipedia use this so-called "universal scale (if one exists)?" We could use that argument on every single political party in every single country. The National Democratic Party of Germany is further to the right than Alternative For Germany, does that mean we should change AfD's position to right wing (unsourced)? The articles say "far-left." That is what we should put.--66.215.219.189 (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Socialists_of_America&oldid=1009552445"