Talk:Democratic Socialists of America

"Seats in house" Count

The box at the top right of the page (when viewed on a desktop) shows that the DSA has 2/235 seats in the US House of Reps. Shouldn't this read 2/435? The 235 number seems to come from the number of seats held by Democrats rather than the total number of seats in the house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.116.26 (talk)

The questionable nature of the relevant comparison is one of several good reasons this should simply not appear in the infobox -- it should instead be treated properly, in the article text. Other good reasons are that DSA is not actually a political party: no one was elected on a DSA ballot line, belonging to DSA does not preclude one from belonging to political parties, and so on. It was removed (again), hopefully it will not be added back. --JBL (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The practice of including seats in the house is standard for pressure groups like the Blue Dogs. Admittedly that is a formal caucus, but they didn't run as Blue Dogs either. Zellfire999 (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Multi-tendency

I have once again removed the descriptor "multi-tendency" from the infobox. There are several reasons to do this:

• There is no wikipedia article multi-tendency (see this AfD), just a dictionary link
• The dictionary definition is redundant, since it belongs to a list of multiple ideologies
• Multi-tendency is not an ideology, so does not belong on a list of ideologies
• The link has been removed several times by several different editors, and no one has made any attempt to justify including it

--JBL (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, isn't this the same as the more widely used terms big tent or catch-all? --Inspector Semenych (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. It's multi-tendency in the sense that it allows a broad range of democratic socialist viewpoints. Most political parties also allow a broad range of views within their core ideology. TFD (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Just for reference, the term is indeed used: On Internal Organizing and the Momentum Document Leak https://medium.com/@adamschlesinger1/on-internal-organizing-and-the-momentum-document-leak-22ff7d7c9f5b kencf0618 (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

anti-Zionism in infobox

@UnknownM1:: It is already a category on the page, with the page citing this and this. ShimonChai (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is not an ideology and neither source says it is. See "Zionism Is Not an Ideology" in Haaretz which says that anti-Zionism is not an ideology. Nor is there any indication from the sources provided that it is part of DSA ideology. It says that at one time most members were Zionist, but that has waned as anti-Zionism has increased. There is a difference between a policy and an ideology. TFD (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't say that anti-Zionism isn't an ideology, it says that Zionism isn't an ideology. ShimonChai (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds more like a policy resulting from an ideology than an ideology itself. O3000 (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideology as defined as "a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons." With the examples given being overarching concepts i.e "Nationalist Ideology." ShimonChai (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Near as I can see, the DSA is against nationalist ideology, they see Zionism as ethnonationalist, and now have an anti-Zionism position based upon rejection of that ideology. That makes it a position. O3000 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, at least factions of the DSA have purposed a referendum on the existence of Israel. Which seems to be singling out Israel and Zionism specifically as a matter of policy. ShimonChai (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That's an opinion by someone in the DSA pushing a position. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I stated factions, because it is signed by factions within the DSA. ShimonChai (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A position is not an ideology. And there is no evidence that the DSA divides into Zionist and anti-Zionist factions. A faction is after all a group that caucuses separately and holds a distinct set of policies, like the Republican Liberty Caucus or the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition. TFD (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideology section

So i have thought about wether or not we should remove anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism and anti-fascism from the infobox, the reason is because these are all common tendencies of socialist ideology in general and as such might not necessarily be needed as separate ideologies in the infobox! Furthermore, in the ideology-section of the article, Internationalism is listed as an ideology, so should we perhaps add this to the infobox? I hope my fellow editors will think about and hopefully answer to these propositions, i will not carry out these changes unless enough responding editors agree with these propositions! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it would be nice to get some input! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Bernie an independent

This is a quibble, but where the lede says, "The organization has at times endorsed Democratic electoral candidates—notably Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders—and the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader", it's potentially misleading to include Bernie Sanders in that category. As an independent senator seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie doesn't entirely fit into either the Democratic or the third party box. What would people think of changing this to "... Kerry and Barack Obama—as well as Bernie Sanders and the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader" or some such? Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a concern, but think that rephrasing could be more spelled out rather than rely on the reader to know that Sanders is both an independent and ran for the Dem nom, perhaps "... Kerry and Barack Obama—as well as the independent candidate for Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, and the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader"? Also those were all caniddates for POTUS and that should be said, maybe instead:

"The organization has at times endorsed Democratic candidates for U.S. President, notably Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, as well as Bernie Sanders's independent bid for the Democratic nomination; they've also supported the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader."

While a bit wordier, I think that resolves a lot of the issues with the article's current phrasing. JesseRafe (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Enormous amounts of self-sourced content and original research/WP:SYNTH

This article needs to be cleaned up considerably. The content in it should rely on reliable secondary sourcing. It should not rely on primary sourcing or non-Rs, and the interpretations by Wikipedia editors of those primary sources/non-RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF covers this fine. If they want to be anti-capitalist then that is fine. It is not an extraordinary claim that a socialist org would want to replace capitalism. PackMecEng (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Readers want to know what reliable sources consider important about the DSA. If they want to read their various statements that have been ignored by the media and academic sources they can go to the DSA website. It requires critical assessment to determine which policy positions are important and interpret them. There is also the problem that due to the decentralized nature of the DSA, there is no consistency in policies. TFD (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added more sources that back up their statement and discussion them saying it. Again it is not a controversial statement here, it is basically one of the reasons for their existence. If you like I can add some more as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The text says, "The DSA regards the end of capitalism and the realization of socialism as a gradual long-term goal therefore the organization focuses its immediate political energies on reforms within capitalism that empower working people while decreasing the power of corporations." But there's no statement either by the DSA or the secondary sources that the end of capitalism and establishment of socialism are goals at all. It's like a doctor saying that since we are unlikely to see immortality realized tomorrow, we try to ensure people live as long as possible. That doesn't mean that the long term goal of doctors is to make people live for ever. TFD (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I see it more as my long term goal is to be a billionaire and everyday I am working towards that goal. Perhaps one day I will get there, but if I don't that does not mean it was not my goal. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Suppose you wrote, "As I am unlikely to become a billionaire tomorrow, I will get a job that pays the rent." Then there are billions of people whose goal is to be a billionaire. I think the confusion is that in the 19th century socialists did want to end capitalism entirely, but became more pragmatic in the past century. TFD (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Political Position

The DSA is widely considered to be to the left of some of the country's most left wing public officials. By Western European standards, the DSA is far left, having voted to leave the SI specifically because the SI was perceived as insufficiently left wing. As a small fraction of the political left in the United States, the DSA is further on the left than the standard political left, the definition of Far Left politics. New York Magazine and The Atlantic, both reputable left of center publications, have identified the DSA as far left.