Talk:Democratic Socialists of America

POV

Wikipedia is a great resource. If people were honest and objective it would be a perfect one. Its credibility is more likely to be destroyed however, by the needless editorializing that I've seen in some listings, particularly those related to politics.

On this DSA listing, the information regarding specific members of the U.S. Congress who are members of the organization is just not correct. Bernie Sanders has never been a member of DSA; he will tell you that, they will tell you that. Dellums left DSA five years ago. Danny Davis's membership is only rumoured, and Major Owens is hardly notable for much of anything.

And putting in a line about what one political group thinks about another is hardly a NPOV, and really out of line. It's a bit like saying that the Republican Party feels that the Socialist Party USA are godless murdering Leninists who should all move to Cuba. That may in fact be what Republicans think about that organization, but that has nothing to do with the Socialist Party USA, and shouldn't be included in their listing either. If the Socialist Party USA wants to use their own listing or their own web site to comment on other groups, more power to them, but it's really sleazy to put your own propaganda in someone else's Wiki listings.

Don't make Wikipedia listings your own editorial column. That's what blogs are for, and anyone can have one these days.

August bebel

Surely a dispute between two groups deriving out of the old Socialist Party of America about the proper role of electoral politics is different from what Republicans think of SPUSA, and is more relevant to an article on one of the groups? john k 17:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would be more relevant in a listing for the history of the Socialist Party of America itself. Going into each one of the listings for each one of the groups that sprouted off 31 years ago from what was at the time a pretty stodgy and dormant SP of A, and inserting what each thinks of the other, seems to me to be a bit odd, not to mention petty and counterproductive to the encyclopedic idea. It would be better for each group to have their position stated in their own listing. The issue in question here - electoral politics - is not the driving issue for DSA. Other groups - mostly not from the old party - are far more obsessed with DSA's non-electoral focus than DSA itself. So I'll try it another way: the relevance of including the Socialist Party USA's opinion of DSA's electoral position in DSA's listing might be similar to including the SPUSA's opinion of Greenpeace on their direct action strategies in the Greenpeace listing. The two orgs (DSA & SPUSA) are as different today as Catholics and Protestants, who also used to belong to the same group once upon a time. The third group in the mix (SDUSA) might as well have become Hindus, to extend the metaphor. So while it is fair to deal with what divides the three heirs to the SP of A in a historical piece, it's not fair on a site like this one to speak about either group today through the eyes of the other. As I said before, it's the kind of thing that if it runs rampant will make the whole Wikipedia less credible. August bebel 18:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

August,

Thank you for your original contribution, which added some valuable information. However, before you go around impugning other contributors' motives and making judgements about NPOV policy, please familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy and etiquette (you might especially want to take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Assume good faith).

As to the specific points of controversy here:

1) Thank you for clarifying the matter of the congressmen. However, the former membership, rumored membership, and semi-formal association of members of congress is worthy of inclusion in the article, assuming it's verifiable. Removing information from an article wholesale, without explanation, will almost always get reverted.

2) I added the sentence which you apparently find objectionable. I did not do so because I am a SP-USA member (in fact, I'm not), or because random SP-USA members' opinions of DSA are inherently worthy of inclusion (they're not). I did so because you removed information which was perfectly worthy of inclusion: that DSA's electoral strategy is controversial in democratic socialist circles (whether that's fair or not). Where there is significant controversy, it should be characterized fairly in the article, without taking sides. This is Wikipedia policy, which you'll see followed in plenty of article -- you're entitled to disagree with it, but it still must be followed.

RadicalSubversiv E 19:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Radical,

I owe you an apology for my own jump to conclusions. I guess what bothered me is the phrase "would prefer", which seems to suggest that what one specific group wants for another actually matters to the other. That is why I read it as partisan. My error.

Can I suggest that it might be more helpful to say something like "DSA's endorsements of Democratic candidates has been a matter of some controversy among both the right as well as the left. Other socialists in the United States feel that socialist organizations should support only explicitly socialist candidates, whereas right-wing groups have used DSA's support of progressive Democrats to try to red-bait the candidates themselves."

I'll come back to the members of Congress later. I appreciate the change, but it's still a bit awkward, and considering what I've mentioned above about red-baiting, you can see why I think it's important to be as accurate as possible on this, or omit it altogether.

August bebel 20:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The part about other socialists seems good, although perhaps "Other socialists, including the Socialist Party USA, feel that..." The part about right-wingers using it to red-bait is, I think POV, and should be described in a different fashion. john k 21:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I totally get everything said and think it was cool to see things resolved amicably. But my comment is that in the relatively arcane subject of Socialist politics in the US, there isn't much information except for the squabbling between the, what is it 12+? parties out there (I call it the Life of Brian syndrome). True it is hearsay, but if it is worded right like suggested above it might still perhaps be worthy of mention. The Democratic Party's posturing is also interesting. If they want to appeal to the moderate right, any mention of anything red, or even green would cause a knee jerk reaction. How to write this and conform to standards is a task I don't particularly envy though. Khirad 02:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Size

Does anyone have any evidence on the description of the DSA as the largest socialist organization in the US, or an estimate of its current membership? Rafaelgr 00:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Seeing none, I'm going to remove the "largest" phrase. Rafaelgr 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

DSA use the phrase "largest socialist organization" as a recruiting slogan; but like you, I'd be curious to see the actual figures. I imagine it would still be true, although if their 2005 convention report is to be believed, their membership has fallen by more than 50% from 1993 to 2005. (Shame.) SPUSA's membership has reportedly been rising, although the last I heard they were still at not much more than a thousand members. I wonder whether P&FP, the ISO or other Trotskyist formations would be in the same league, numbers-wise... QuartierLatin1968 23:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The ISO is (in my opinion as an ISO member with some friends in DSA) definitely in the same league, as are (probably) SPUSA and CPUSA, and perhaps Committees of Correspondence. Of course these groups have very different standards of membership, so a comparison wouldn't mean much even if numbers were available. I'd be astonished if Peace and Freedom were anywhere near the same size as any of these groups, unless you count people who are only registered voters. Rafaelgr 22:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Another item: Can anyone name any DSA members elected to office, or otherwise document their existence? Rafaelgr 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A Party or a Position?

I've heard of this party. Why isn't it on the list of "political parties of the USA" page, when there are so many less significant left parties there? Could it be that this party isn't fielding candidates, or what?

It's not a political party, nor does it claim to be. RadicalSubversiv E 05:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The DSA is a political action committee and works within the DNC and/or Democratic Party. The only democratic socialist party is the Socialist Party of the United States of America which does not work with the DNC and likewise, another Leftist party is the Social Democratic Party of America which is geared more in line with the Socialist International and the Christian Socialist Movement. The slight difference is "revolution" (militant) verses "evolution " (peaceful and reforming). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.243.117.153 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate that DSA is a political action committee(PAC). DSA has a PAC, but it is primarily an advocacy organization; electoral work constitutes only a small part of its work. It also worth point out that the Social Democratic Party of America is a less significant group and is not a member of the Socialist International. User:Ripeugenedebs User_talk:Ripeugenedebs 10:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

DSA and the democratic party

I'm going to try to expand on the DSA's relationship with and attitude towards the Democratic Party. I'm sure there will be some disputed points. Rafaelgr 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know it anyone can elaborate on DSA's decision to back Jackson in 88. I would also love it if we could improve the paragraph on prominent members; I think it mixes up people like Chomsky, who tends to sign up for things like this out of friendliness, with people who actually play a role in shaping the DSA, which I think includes Barbara Ehrenreich. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this to do much more. Rafaelgr 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I can work on cleaning this up a bit at some point. Chomsky has spoken at least one conference of the youth section (YDS) but is not really an active member. Ehrenreich is an honorary co-chair, like Cornel West, and is much more actively involved.Ripeugenedebs (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

DSA is a social-democratic organization

Despite its name, DSA is clearly a social-democratic organization for three reasons. 1)It is member of the Socialist International,the largest organization of social-democratic parties. 2)DSA is partially anti-capitalist.We can verify this by looking at the first question about DSA organization in its website. 3)If it were really left-wing,it would not support candidates of Democratic Party. We don't have to be deceived by the name. There are many parties which call themselves "socialists", but they are social-democratic or even Trotskyst. So the organization is social-democratic and center-left both on fiscal and social issues. Itanesco (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A user put this in the edit summary box: "DSA is to the left of traditional social democracy. It is an anti-capitalist organization. This is why it doesn't call itself "Social Democrats of America." Regarding their distinction against "Social Democrats . . . ," it should be noted that this name distinguished the organization against the third splinter from the 1971 splintering of the Socialist Party: the Social Democrats USA. Dogru144 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That edit summary is somewhat specious, since SDUSA was well to the right of traditional social democracy. I also have trouble swallowing the description of DSA as an anti-capitalist organization, particularly given its participation in the Democratic Party. That said, I can't get too excited over terminology. How about opening with "Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is an organization of democratic socialists and social democrats in the United States, and the..."? I think that's more accurate than claiming it's exclusively one or the other. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Center-Left

I see that the ideological position for DSA is listed as left-wing. I believe that center-left would be a more accurate characterization, as DSA, rather than advocating a major turn away from the existing political order, chooses instead to function as an element of the Democratic Party.
If they were trying to build a working-class major party or popular front, the term "left-wing" would be more accurate. However, since they are trying to work within the existing political order rather than dramatically change the face of it, "center-left" would better represent the true nature of DSA's work.
In addition to their mainstream approach to electoral politics, their policy stances are hardly out of the center-left portion of the international political spectrum. I believe that as the ideas of social democracy and democratic socialism are not so radical in most modern countries, we shouldn't treat them like they are in an article about an American organization. Since most parties/organizations of a social democratic/democratic socialist nature in other nations are characterized as "center-left", the article about the American ideological equivalent should reflect the same. I'm therefore changing the positions to "center-left," is that okay with everyone?--Apjohns54 (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it has won wings, the center-left social democrats and the far-left democrat-socialists. In Europe this is common as well as the social democrat parties are mostly social democrats but they always have a left wing in their party of democrat socialists. Just like the US Republican Party being conservative but also has a wing of libertarians or the US Democrat being liberal with a wing of conservatives.

Membership claim absolutely false

Fox News talking out their posterior is accepted as a means for estimating membership, but calculating membership based on the published sworn statement of circulation of the party's mag is not???

Here is my wording for language, which I stand by as more accurate than that which appears here. I object most strenuously to the revert.

DSA has never released exact membership data, let alone a reliable annual series of actually paid memberships, instead using round numbers and making use of words like "about" and "around" and letting stand uncorrected media estimates of membership strength. The best available metric for estimating the size of the actually paid membership of the group is their sworn annual "Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation" regarding its official magazine made to the U.S. Post Office in order to qualify for subsidized postal rates.

According to the 2009 declaration published in the Winter 2009/10 issue of Democratic Left, DSA shows an average paid subscription of 5,707 for its magazine — this representing an absolute maximum membership count for the organization, assuming a non-member subscribership of zero. Since every member of DSA receives a paid subscription to Democratic Left and since the number of non-member subscribers is certainly in excess of zero, actual paid membership may reasonably be assumed to be significantly less than this figure.

Claims are made that the DSA continues to be the largest socialist organization in the United States.

footnotes

Carrite (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We can post membership estimates from reliable sources or from the organization itself, but cannot independently calculate the membership. See: WP:SYN. It is possible that only one copy of the magazine would be sent to families. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no "reliable sources" used for membership estimates in this article, unless you count a rank-and-filer from Portland, Maine making the (absurd) claim that membership was "about 10,000" in 2008 counts. THAT'S not a reliable source. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

May be absurd and wrong, but the source meets the WP:RS guideline, and seeing that there is not other sources rejecting this or claiming another membership total, it would be absurd to remove. If you find any sources which claim a higher or lower membership number, add it. --TIAYN (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I suspect "Four Deuces" is a sock puppet. 2. You are very close to violation of the 3 revert rule. Carrite (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply: 1. Your going paranoid and you are breaching WP:UNCIVIL, and yes i am breaching the 3-revert rule. But you have been breaching a lot of guidelines when editing this article today. Stop claiming, and stop promoting your own personal opinion. --TIAYN (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: If you really think we are sock puppets, nominate us to the Administrator sock puppet board. --TIAYN (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The pattern of these reversions serve to "glorify" DSA as having a continual upward growth of membership, something that is absolutely not proven on the basis of the evidence presented. The group claimed in 1982 to have "about 6,000" members and "about 7,000" in 1987. That's all you can say, unless you want to use a number pulled from the sky by Fox News (of all "reputable sources" on the topic of American Socialism, I think they're maybe not the best, putting it mildly) or the statement of a rank-and-filer from Maine in 2008 that the group had "about 10,000" — a round number that. And what is the basis of authority for the assertion?

I don't want to edit war with you — it's a waste of time. I see from your talk page that this is not the first time this pattern of behavior has been engaged in. I'll drop it for now, just remember the old saying "Garbage In, Garbage Out." If you are happy stuffing "absurd" and "wrong" material into this article for the greater glory of a group (NPOV, anyone???), that's on you, not me. Carrite (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fox News, meets the WP:RS criteria, Common Dreams meet the reliable source criteria. How do you know that Fox News have pulled this numbers from the sky? Do you work for Fox News? No, you don't! You can't say that some sources are not qualified because you don't support or trust those sources. I am neutral, i didn't even know about organization before late 2009, and by the end of the day i couldn't really give a dam about it (seeing that i live in another continent). But i am not the one breaching WP:NPOV, you are, i'm following what the sources say, you on the other include sources which includes your claims (as seen in your version above). Listen to what i'm saying. --TIAYN (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because something can be quoted off the internet doesn't make it true. A sworn circulation statement made by the organization itself — and PUBLISHED as a PDF, thus easily verifiable — tops the opinion of a rank-and-filer 500 km. away from the National Office... And Fox News has ZERO information about DSA's internal records. Carrite (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Carrite, so your editing at SDUSA is not the first time you have been cautioned about OR and synthesis.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

5,700 is actually approximately 10,000 and if they wanted to brag the fact is that both major parties have millions of members. The days of competition between the SLP, the Socialist Party, the Communists and the Trotskyists is over. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Another absolutely pointless revert

RE: << (cur) (prev) 19:05, 26 February 2010 Trust Is All You Need (talk | contribs) (21,672 bytes) (There are many organizations which have a national convention, no reason to list them) (undo) >>

I'm out of here. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Structure

DSA is organized at the local level, and works with labor unions, community organizations, and campus activists on issues of common interest. Nationwide campaigns are coordinated by the organization's national office in New York City. As of 2006 the DSA website lists 24 chartered locals.

Governance of the DSA is by the group's National Political Committee, which since 2001 has been 16 person body. The organization's constitution states that at least 8 of the NPC's members shall be women and at least 4 members of "racial or national" minority groups. A 17th vote is cast by the representative of the DSA's youth affiliate, the Young Democratic Socialists, who elect 1 male and 1 female delegate who split the vote. The NPC meets four times a year.

The NPC elects an inner committee of 6, including 5 of its own members and 1 representative of the youth section, called the "Steering Committee." At least two of these are constitutionally required to be women and at least 1 a "person of color," with the National Director and the Youth Section Organizer also participating as ex-officio members. This Steering Committee meets bimonthly, either in person or by conference call.

The highest decision-making authority of the organization is the organization's national conventions, which are held biannually. These gatherings of the organization are as follows:

Year	Dates Held	Location	Delegates
2009	November 13-15	Evanston, IL	82
2007	November 9-11	Atlanta, GA
2005	November 11-13	Los Angeles, CA
2003	November 14-16	Detroit, MI
2001	November 9-11	Philadelphia, PA
1999
1997
1995
1993

I have added the location and date of the 1999 convention, which I found here: DSA News- Bernie Sanders Speaks to the DSA Convention as well as here: New Ground 64 - Chicago DSA. Honestly, I think listing delegate numbers is rather pointless, and I am not sure that information will be easily found, anyway. Ripeugenedebs (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: For the time being, I have deleted the rows for 1993, 1995, and 1997. Until this information is added, it looks poor for the rows to remain blank. Also, I agree with the above comment that many (if not most, or all) organizations have national conventions, so they do not necessarily need to be listed. However, I see some validity in leaving the table there, so I am not going to unilaterally delete it until there is some consensus on the issue. Ripeugenedebs (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Social Progressivism

I do not see the need for "social progressivism" to be listed in the info-box under DSA's ideology. Nor do I think it belongs in the intro. The Socialist International describes itself as follows: "The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties." See: [The Socialist International Website]Ripeugenedebs (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Harrington/Ehrenreich misquotation

This article misattributes a partial quotation from Bogdan Denitch to Harrington/Ehrenreich, who then write several paragraphs of their decades long criticism of Soviet communism and their rejection of a planned economy, and their criticism of top-down reforms and support for a revitalized civil society and labor unions, etc.

Since Ehrenreich is alive, this is a BLP violation.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

Is this party a center-left social democrat party or a far left democrat socialist party or is it both when two wings. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.241.128 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)