Talk:Democratic Socialists of America

Caucuses section

I removed two caucuses from the list of major caucuses, partly due to a lack of secondary sources. However, I'm questioning whether this list (and the NPC seat chart) should be on this page at all. These internal groups will likely be difficult to find reliable/non-primary sources for, and is there any precedent for having this degree of inside baseball? Are there other articles about political parties/orgs which go to this level of detail? I'm not sure it's notable enough. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 05:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I checked other political parties/orgs pages and there are some similarities. The Socialist Party of America includes a table of party conventions; the Democratic Party which has a page for factions (however, the DNC is much notable); the Green National Committee lists caucus affiliation. However, the Libertarian Party does not list any such info.

Regardless, I do think that the NPC seat chart should be included. Given the power it has in the DSA, its inclusion is helpful. Caucuses also play a significant role in the DSA, so I think it would be remiss of us to not mention them. Unlike the caucus list, it's also much fairly simple to provide sources for them, as a link to their website is sufficient.

However, I don't believe the caucus list should be included. Given the number of edits to it, it's demonstrably unclear what ideologies are associated with the respective caucuses. Further, what caucuses should be included vs. not included is unclear, besides the ones on the NPC. As such, I think we should keep mentions of caucuses to the chart. Ze0n983 (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The ideologies are clear based on their platforms and secondary sources. The now-removed edits that people made previously seem to have largely been unsourced additions, but the ones that are currently up I believe well reflect the clear ideologies of each. The groups not on the NPC I feel can still be significant if they are part of major coalitions or coalition statements, if they have been reported on by outside sources, or if they were noted as major actors at National Conventions. I believe all the currently listed ones fit that guideline. Minor caucuses such as, say, the Lighthouse Caucus, are not included and I believe are good not to include due to lack of notability. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think there is some merit to what you're saying here. The caucus list has improved, especially when it comes to sources. Nevertheless, I still don't believe it's wise to have it.

I don't believe their ideologies are clear. The LSC, which was listed as horizontalist, now has that removed and instead has dual power. Clearly, there is still contention. Constellation is also listed as proponents of Socialism of the 21st Century (vs. youth politics before), which doesn't seem supported by their website. I'm admittedly not very familiar with the Communist Caucus but their site too does not seem to support the ideologies listed (i.e. left communism and and autonomism).

Nevertheless, even if these ideologies were clarified, I still believe it shouldn't be included. As I said before, it's not clear what caucuses are major. Red Labor Caucus, for instance, signed onto a coalition statement in favor of amending the agenda. They also played a significant role in promoting it by creating its graphic. I would also note that RLC has participated in an NPC panel involving RnR and LSC, both major caucuses. Yet, Red Labor Caucus isn't included. In my opinion, rightfully so.

On the other hand, North Star Caucus is included. While they did submit a resolution to Convention, I wouldn't consider them a major caucus. Their influence is fairly limited. Yet, they're included on the list. In my opinion, incorrectly.

So, given the size of it compared to its usefulness and the ambiguity surrounding it, I think it should be removed. However, I do think that caucuses like R&R (which aren't on NPC but are influential) to be included.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to remove the list and list the caucuses in a paragraph, linking back to their respective sites? This would be a similar solution to the one used on the Green National Committee page. Ze0n983 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I replaced horizontalism with dual power not because it's wrong, but because dual power is more explicitly discussed in the sources. I agree there need to be better sources listed, but this does not warrant removal as it still provides critical information about the politics of DSA.

North Star, while it has limited membership, still holds sway in the organization due to having many older members from before 2016, but for the sake of brevity it might be fine to remove it from the table. I'm ambiguous on Red Labor since they are a very recent formation without much established influence, from what I can tell. LSC, R&R, and CC, while not on the NPC, still hold notable influence in the organization and are discussed outside of the organization, based on the sources.

I see no lists of caucuses on the GNC page, just a list of committees (which DSA has as well, but previous editors removed a section that listed them); and the GNC does not appear to me as influential particularly considering the Green Party has no members in federal or state government, their members in local offices are all seemingly in very small towns, and my understanding is they don't do much beyond the electoral realm--this is not the case for DSA. They may have 200,000+ paper members, but it's much easier to mark a bubble on a ballot than to pay dues to an organization as DSA requires.

I strongly oppose removing the table, due to the cited centrality of caucuses in DSA, and due to the relevance for understanding the politics of DSA itself. Just having a sentence in the ideology section briefly mentioning some of the ideologies is not nearly as helpful as also specifically showing which notable subgroups within the organization follow which ideological paths. It is a clean and simple table with basic information without going too in-depth, as my previous edits a couple months ago were reverted for by another editor. This table is already a compromise from having subsections on more specific details of the caucuses and slates.

The fact that people changed the table without those changes reflecting what's said in the citations is not a fault of the table, and the recent restriction to the page I think helps. But I can say that any changes that I have made on the caucus ideology column reflect my understanding of what the sources say, not my personal understanding (I would add different descriptors to some if it were about my personal understanding!).

The solution that I suggest is to simply edit the table until it is the best use of space. I believe the citations so far well demonstrate most of these should stay, a couple are notable but need better citations, and a couple may or may not be relevant enough to keep. I would not complain if we took Red Labor and North Star off for the mentioned reasons, but I also am not saying we should take them off. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't remove North Star when I removed Red Labor because of its longevity/history, but I should've found a source for that. I wouldn't object to their removal from the list, considering their waning influence. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 04:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I included more recent sources for one of them. I think this section is notable because of the impact that the caucuses have on how DSA runs, and the fact that most of these caucuses are discussed outside of DSA and are clearly delineated factions. Other organizations and parties tend to have more informal factions, which are talked about in, for example, Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Ideology_and_factions. One section with a table doesn't seem to me excessive. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, just saw these comments. Largely agree with you both. Re: other parties, I think the Green and Dem caucuses are recognized by the parties, which is a bit different than this situation. The Greens' caucus section is very short and self-explanatory, as they're all personal identity groups. The Dems get way more coverage than either DSA or Greens, so it's no surprise their factions page is sizeable. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 14:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I would remove the list. The caucuses of the Democratic Party are notable as proved by the fact they have their own articles. But there is so little coverage in reliable sources of DSA caucuses, that we cannot justify the section.

Also, the ideology field is problematic. Presumably all of them are democratic socialist, Drilling down for greater analysis requires expert opinion, which is not available.

TFD (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources do discuss the ideological persuasions of the caucuses, and the Democratic Party does not have such clearly defined factions as DSA does due to the presence of unique and mutually exclusive caucuses (a minor exception in North Star members often being part of SMC as well). Maybe you don't hear about them every day in The New York Times but they are certainly relevant to the functioning of the organization due to most convention proposals and NPC candidates being written or endorsed by caucuses or slates, and the widely varying theories of organizing ranging from reform to revolution, market to non-market, verticalist to horizontalist, etc. Democratic socialism and anti-imperialism can surely be assumed, but more specific identifiers are available that determine DSA members' ideas about the theories mentioned in the previous sentence. Democratic socialism is a very wide net that cannot possibly convey the specific ideas of major groups within DSA. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the sources used are reliable as defined in Wikipedia. Since descriptions of caucuses are analyses, per Wikipedia:NEWSORG, we would expect them to be written by experts in their field, i.e., people who have published articles about the DSA in peer reviewed journals. TFD (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I support removing the caucuses section. Blocky858 (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I oppose removing the caucuses section. There is some brief discussion of them in adjacent news outlets (think: New Republic, Dissent) and very they're useful for understanding the internals of DSA. SocDoneLeft (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Example: the National Review got mad at Marxist Unity Group: https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/10/the-dsas-extremism-goes-beyond-israel/ SocDoneLeft (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this is a terrible idea. It's useful information to have on the wikipedia that the NPC has caucuses, and especially listing the ones with representatives currently. 208.223.18.178 (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

i am inclined towards viewing this section as WP:FANCRUFT. it really doesn’t provide much value to readers interested in learning about the organization as it relates to general politics in the united states. isadora of ibiza (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a large field dedicated to organisation of trade labor organisations and socialist organisations. This would help me and others get a general overview of the topic.

I recently did a draft of a NPC wiki page (mostly just so I could remember whats been removed and build upon the breakup of the factions). I think having it in the DSA page or sectioning out the page would be great! DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It really makes no sense at all to remove the section entirely- feels like getting rid of information for the sake of getting rid of information. Zellfire999 (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

discussion of anti-Semitism controversy in lede section

i have restored a portion of the paragraph in the lede section, the original text of which centered on controversy from the pro-Hamas rally which took place in Times Square on Oct 8.

i recognize that discussing the controversy itself within the lede may constitute undue weight, and i have chosen to exclude that material from the text i restored, on the grounds that the GOP and the Democratic Party have been accusing each other of racism since time immemorial, and neither article dwells on the respective controversies in their lede sections.

however, discussion of the impact of the controversy on DSA’s congressional representation is clearly in-scope. my argument is not analytical, but mathematical — DSA is a small organization with a tiny congressional delegation, and therefore the disaffiliation of even a handful of its members in the House is noteworthy. if a third of the House Republican Conference were to resign overnight, that would clearly merit inclusion in the lede of the associated article.

isadora of ibiza (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The specific details and controversies connected with the NYC rally should not be discussed in the lead section at the top of the article. However, the fact that the DSA has received much criticism (not always in connection with the NYC rally) for its positions, and for the statements of various local chapters, with respect to the Hamas crimes, so that according to some the organization is now in something of a crisis, can certainly be mentioned in general terms... AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is that it's far too soon to tell whether this will merit inclusion in the lead, and that including it too early risks running afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. The DSA has been around a long time, and many topics are covered in this rather extensive article, so I am wary of WP:RECENCY bias. Further, even with the perhaps WP:UNDUE level of coverage we've given to the 2023 NYC rally –– especially given the DSA's peripheral role in it –– a mention in the lead would at this point run counter to the advice given in MOS:LEAD that the lead should summarize the article body. Generalrelative (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Obviously we can't know now what the long-term significance of this will be many years in the future, but right now, many people who never heard of the DSA before are first hearing of it through this controversy, which means that it has some current significance AnonMoos (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That's very true. The issue is just that on Wikipedia it's generally agreed we should try to avoid WP:RECENCY bias. In this case, highlighting this controversy in the lead might give readers the false sense that it is more central to the topic than DUE weight dictates (i.e. WP:FALSEBALANCE), which would be a disservice. Generalrelative (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

to be clear, WP:RECENCY is not an official policy, it is merely a common criticism of articles that provide a great deal of detail about events that are easily researched from online sources, and no corresponding detail about events that happened before.

an appropriate application of WP:RECENCY in this case would be if DSA had promoted many such rallies in the past, and received similarly broad rebukes from american society at large, but only the Oct 8 rally were mentioned in the lede. to my knowledge, this is not the case here. (although others who have been redwatching the organization for longer than me might contradict me.)

that something merely happened recently is not sufficient to invoke WP:RECENCY. the four members currently in the party’s congressional delegation (Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, and Greg Casar) were all elected recently, but they are mentioned in the lede. if the delegation were to suddenly gain a fifth member, surely somebody would add that to the lede within days. in our case, the subject of the article did not gain, but lose a member over the controversy. additions and deletions should be treated equally.

isadora of ibiza (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You might note that I said it's generally agreed we should try to avoid WP:RECENCY rather than using the language of policy. That said, some essays are much more widely cited than others, and this one is widely cited. It's probably best to think of it as a norm, much like WP:BRD. As for the rest, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

no worries! i was only concerned that the phrasing generally agreed might be incorrectly read as synonymous with consensus. i myself cite WP:RECENCY quite often.

isadora of ibiza (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, this overly focuses on the federal level. Secondly, Bowman already left a year prior as per the citation, and Thanedar was never endorsed by DSA and was expelled from the organization a month prior, also per its citation, contrary to his claim of resignation, because he never was a socialist or an anti-Zionist and in fact is part of the capitalist class the DSA works to organize against. The analogy you're trying to make with the House Republican Conference is completely incomparable given that all three endorsed electeds at the federal level are staying with the organization and have led some of the actions that people like Thanedar denounce.

That said, it is notable enough to mention somewhere in the article (not the lede), which is why there is already a section that discusses it. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The accusations are based off of a rally held by a separate group of people that DSA initially endorsed before retracting it. Seems rather one-sided to include it. CeeeeeeNW (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

Change section on steering committee that states "The NPC elects a leadership committee of six, the Steering Committee, including seven of its own members, two of whom are the representatives of the youth section. At least two of these are constitutionally required to be women and at least one a person of color, with the National Director and the Youth Section Organizer also participating as ex officio non-voting members. The Steering Committee meets bimonthly, either in person or by conference call"

to

"The NPC elects seven of its own members to a leadership committee, the Steering Committee, two of whom must be the representatives of the youth section. At least two of these are constitutionally required to be women and at least one a person of color. The National Director and the Youth Section Organizer also participating as ex officio non-voting members. The Steering Committee meets bimonthly, either in person or by conference call "

The wordage of "They elect six including sevem from themselves" is written in a slightly confusing way. I feel that changing the wording to explicitly state it's a seven person committee and stating 5 are elected is much clearer. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done with a slight grammatical change. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2024

Requesting to add under State and local elections

In the 2023 off-year elections, DSA endorsed or affiliated candidates retained the majority of the local seats initially won during the 2019 municipal elections. Indianapolis chapter-endorsed candidate Jesse Brown won the Democratic primary for district 13 against the incumbent vice president of the Indianapolis City-County Council. In the 2023 Chicago aldermanic elections, the Chicago City Council Democratic Socialist Caucus gained a seat with the election of Angela Clay for ward 46. Aurin Chowdhury, endorsed by the Twin Cities DSA and the Minneapolis DFL was elected in the 2023 Minneapolis elections for ward 12. In Denver, DSA endorsed candidate Sarah Parady won a tight race for the city's at-large seat, while Candi CdeBaca lost her re-election for district 9. Hoosier24 (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Suggestion to add "Marxism" to the ideology section

DSA would be a Marxist organization, not only in the initial creation of the organization, but with the growth of a left-wing within it that bring Marxism to it. I think it can be added, but I'll leave it up for discussion. CeeeeeeNW (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources refer to DSA as "marxist"? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There this piece from DSA's Socialist Forum that discusses Marxism and its relation to socialism:

https://socialistforum.dsausa.org/issues/fall-2021/marxism-and-democracy/

On top of that, several caucuses in the DSA adhere explicity to different Marxist tendencies:

https://reformandrevolution.org/

https://www.marxistunity.com/

https://breadandrosesdsa.org/

https://redstarcaucus.org/

I would believe it's appropriate to list Marxism within the ideology section given how prominent Marxism is. CeeeeeeNW (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why you began your list with an article written by the late Michael Harrington in 1981? The DSA is considerably different from when he founded it and most current members had not even been born then. TFD (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Because Michael Harrington was the founding member of the DSA, and his mention and invoking of Marxism speaks about its contribution. Newer members make a stronger case for it too, seeing as many consoder themselves to be Marxists. CeeeeeeNW (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If anything Marxism has become a much more prominent force within DSA since Harrington's time Shlumpsters (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

DSA doesn't officially call itself "Marxist"; only certain caucuses do. It'd be incorrect to call DSA as a whole "Marxist". AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"Left-wing to far left"?

I noticed that the ideology section in the infobox gets periodically changed by different editors.

Two months ago, the box said "Left-wing to far-left". Then a month ago, it just said "Left-wing". As of right now, the "far-left" part was readded.

I think the DSA is undoubtedly left-wing given its anti-capitalist platform, but I do think adding "far-left" isn't warranted. The two sources being used to describe it as such are about small communist caucuses that make up a relatively tiny portion of the entire DSA and there isn't enough evidence to indicate these are major tendencies within it.

This would be akin to adding "left-wing" under the UK Labour Party's ideology because of it having a left-wing faction (the Campaign Group). Yet nevertheless, it's only listed as Center-Left.

At best, these sources could be used as grounds to add "Factions: Far-left", but not to put it as one of its major ideological positions. Okonomiyaki39 (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably best to leave out the field. Basically it is the opinion of Wikipedia editors where they place the DSA along the political spectrum. It adds no additional information, considering that the groups ideology is already mentioned and is fairly obvious from the name. TFD (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not really "far-left" in terms of world political movements, but over the past year its foreign policy positions have been far out of the United States mainstream, and have drifted to become ever more extreme (as seen when Nerdeen Kiswani is declared to be untouchable and beyond even the slightest criticism). Congratulations if you can find a handy two-word phrase to express this reality... AnonMoos (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's make "far-left" a note or something, I think that's best. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)