DSA over $1M+ in debt, membership numbers falling

[GeneralMacArthur]

Maybe they can go on a fact-finding mission to Sharm-el-Sheikh to discover what life is really like for Arabs in the Levant.

[TML]

This is actually a symptom of a broader problem - politicians who were endorsed by progressive organizations such as the DSA, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, etc., had promised on the campaign trail to fight against establishment politicians, but once they got into office, they mostly pulled their punches on that front (for example, in the Build Back Better negotiations, it was clear that progressive politicians weren't anywhere near as aggressive in fighting for their preferred policy proposals as people like Manchin/Sinema were). I attribute this partly to these progressive politicians overtrusting promises/overtures made by establishment Democrats, and partly to their fear of being hounded by the mainstream media (which is economically conservative because of corporate influence). Thus, because people who supported these organizations (along with the politicians they endorsed) saw that their elected people underperformed expectations once in office, they decided to cut back on their donations toward these organizations, which explains their financial problems nowadays.

[jojoju1998]

This is actually a symptom of a broader problem - politicians who were endorsed by progressive organizations such as the DSA, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, etc., had promised on the campaign trail to fight against establishment politicians, but once they got into office, they mostly pulled their punches on that front (for example, in the Build Back Better negotiations, it was clear that progressive politicians weren't anywhere near as aggressive in fighting for their preferred policy proposals as people like Manchin/Sinema were). I attribute this partly to these progressive politicians overtrusting promises/overtures made by establishment Democrats, and partly to their fear of being hounded by the mainstream media (which is economically conservative because of corporate influence). Thus, because people who supported these organizations (along with the politicians they endorsed) saw that their elected people underperformed expectations once in office, they decided to cut back on their donations toward these organizations, which explains their financial problems nowadays.

Big problem with this argument; this assumes that there hasn't been progressive establishment politicians who have been fighting the good fight for years.


But there has.

Ted Kennedy. Russ Feingold. The Late Paul Wellstone. Tammy Baldwin.



And as Ted Kennedy famously pointed out; the goals of the Democratic Party have ALWAYS been progressive. He said that if you want to know if a party is progressive or liberal; don't look at what they promise, look at what they done. And he pointed to the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, all of these things.

The difference between Ted Kennedy and say.... AOC is that Kennedy was a Senate institutionalist, and he believed in the American System, and bipartisan coalitions.



The flaw of DSA, Justice democrats, Our revolution is that they totally missed the history books.

[junior chįmp]

. Once again, as Ted Kennedy said, the progressive ideals have always driven the democratic party. It never left.

He was probably shìtfaced drunk when he said that. "Progressive" ideas left decades ago. That's why the best the Dem party could do was Obamacare  which was Romneycare which was HeritageInstitutecare

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So what would happen if the DSA declares bankruptcy?

As always, depends on the type and what chapter. Could range from having to reel in its activities while it pays creditors to complete dissolution (probably meaning that a bunch of supposed successor organizations based on state chapters pop up.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So what would happen if the DSA declares bankruptcy?

As always, depends on the type and what chapter. Could range from having to reel in its activities while it pays creditors to complete dissolution (probably meaning that a bunch of supposed successor organizations based on state chapters pop up.)

The legal technicalities of these issues can be fascinating. In Britain an organization like the DSA would be classified as an 'unincorporated association' (as even proper political parties are, let alone de facto political clubs like the DSA) and it would not be possible for it to declare (or be sued into etc) bankruptcy in a legal sense. In fact creditors would not be able to do anything to reclaim their money so long as the organization were able to demonstrate that it is a going concern (which is not that difficult). However, if the organization were to be dissolved (as it would have to be if it could not be shown to be a going concern) then its members would be legally liable for all debts: in practice this usually translates as members of the organization's executive committee. I presume that in the USA this is one of those things that varies considerably from state to state: the DSA has its headquarters in New York, and is presumably registered there?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So what would happen if the DSA declares bankruptcy?

As always, depends on the type and what chapter. Could range from having to reel in its activities while it pays creditors to complete dissolution (probably meaning that a bunch of supposed successor organizations based on state chapters pop up.)

The legal technicalities of these issues can be fascinating. In Britain an organization like the DSA would be classified as an 'unincorporated association' (as even proper political parties are, let alone de facto political clubs like the DSA) and it would not be possible for it to declare (or be sued into etc) bankruptcy in a legal sense. In fact creditors would not be able to do anything to reclaim their money so long as the organization were able to demonstrate that it is a going concern (which is not that difficult). However, if the organization were to be dissolved (as it would have to be if it could not be shown to be a going concern) then its members would be legally liable for all debts: in practice this usually translates as members of the organization's executive committee. I presume that in the USA this is one of those things that varies considerably from state to state: the DSA has its headquarters in New York, and is presumably registered there?

Actually bankruptcy in the US is regulated by federal law almost entirely and most bankruptcy cases can't be filed in state courts at all. You've probably heard terms like "Chapter 7", "Chapter 11", and "Chapter 13", those refer to the section of the United States Bankruptcy Code that governs the respective type, and are the most common. Chapter 13 only applies to individuals and not organizations and thus does not apply here. (There's other chapters and types of bankruptcy under some of them but they only apply to very specific types of organizations or very specific circumstances and thus are rarely discussed by anyone who isn't a bankruptcy attorney or works in a court that handles bankruptcy cases.)

Basically if an organization files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy they have to be able to prove that they'll be able to reorganize in a way that'll make them solvent again and able to pay its creditors, this is managed by a court-appointed trustee during this time (meaning that the organization is no longer entirely free to conduct business during the time of bankruptcy, for example if a law firm files for bankruptcy the trustee can both require them to take certain cases or veto taking some, and also veto doing something like renovating or expanding offices if the costs are too much and might impede on its ability to pay the creditors, obviously the extent to their control over this varies wildly case by case and depends entirely on the terms of the bankruptcy) but if this is clearly not the case the court can reject it and force Chapter 7. If Chapter 7 occurs then the organization is dissolved completely, its assets are seized and auctioned off if physical items, and then any proceeds from this go to the creditors, but after that no one is on the hook for any other debt.

I believe that even in a Chapter 7 type situation the DSA's state and local affiliates would remain unless they too filed for bankruptcy, but they usually operate under shoestring budgets with mostly volunteer staff. In theory they could try to reorganize under a new national organization or new type of affiliation but this is no doubt much easier said that done.

[DrScholl]

Hard to imagine that the people who have no concept of having to pay for programs to make them work are now in debt. The DSA is part of a fad that didn't sustain past a couple of election cycles. A lot of the members likely got bored with it like people get bored with trends after awhile.

[junior chįmp]

Hard to imagine that the people who have no concept of having to pay for programs to make them work are now in debt. The DSA is part of a fad that didn't sustain past a couple of election cycles. A lot of the members likely got bored with it like people get bored with trends after awhile.

This country is $31 trillion in debt accumulated over decades by the two parties (supposed big brain rational intellectual parties). The dsa is a clown show but come on

[YE]

I've removed all of the healthcare related posts.

[ingemann]

Hard to imagine that the people who have no concept of having to pay for programs to make them work are now in debt. The DSA is part of a fad that didn't sustain past a couple of election cycles. A lot of the members likely got bored with it like people get bored with trends after awhile.

There’s plenty of head in the sky organizations run by people who are the economic equivalent of flat earthers, who do a fine job of running their organizations all across the world. Honestly pretty much every minor European communist parties are able to do so.

The better question is why organizations who mainly focus on social progressive causes tend to be one who tend to fall into the hands of grifters. Why is it so many social progressives are unable to recognize an obvious grifter just because the grifter is higher up on the hierarchy of victimhood, is it because anyone saying the emperor have no clothing will be purged?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There’s plenty of head in the sky organizations run by people who are the economic equivalent of flat earthers, who do a fine job of running their organizations all across the world. Honestly pretty much every minor European communist parties are able to do so.

The old CPGB was the only British political party of even minor note to run at a consistent profit. They turned out to be very shrewd businessmen and invested all that Moscow Gold very well. Its legal successor (and the owner of its considerable remaining assets) is the think tank Unlock Democracy, the present head of which, Tom Brake, is a former LibDem MP who started out in politics as a member of the SDP, which is probably Peak Postcommunism.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yes, this is a thread in which we all have a good laugh about Comrades boldly voting to pay themselves to attend meetings, to fund fact-finding missions to sub-tropical tourist resorts and to create jobs for their unemployable mates etc.

You know what's ironic is the DSA committed a lot of the same mistakes capitalist big corporations often do, it sounds like they were being ran like a dot com startup around the turn of the century that went bust, with things like assuming their membership numbers would increase indefinitely and regardless of anything they did.

Sounds like a vaguely triangular-shaped business model.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The better question is why organizations who mainly focus on social progressive causes tend to be one who tend to fall into the hands of grifters.

More like political/social cause organizations of all stripes, certainly in the US where a lot of evangelical leaders, the State of Utah, and the entire career arc of Donald Trump demonstrate plenty of grifts. I’m no expert on European politics but I understand that Brexit has also seen some pretty egregious stuff on the Right in this regard.

All politics and social causes depend on appeal to emotion, establishment of an in-group social trust bordering on naïveté, and a momentary suspense of critical thinking as applied to whatever political actor or nonprofit etc. wants you to part with your hard-earned money for their benefit. It shouldn’t be surprising that these arenas are vulnerable to cynical self-promoters and con artists.

[ingemann]

The better question is why organizations who mainly focus on social progressive causes tend to be one who tend to fall into the hands of grifters.

More like political/social cause organizations of all stripes, certainly in the US where a lot of evangelical leaders, the State of Utah, and the entire career arc of Donald Trump demonstrate plenty of grifts. I’m no expert on European politics but I understand that Brexit has also seen some pretty egregious stuff on the Right in this regard.

There's no doubt that the entire career of Nigel Farage has been one long embarrassing obvious grift. But honestly most people involved in the Brexit no matter how big liars they are mostly were into it for power not money.

There's also a lot of grifters on the American right, but they're usually delivering something for the grift (Candace Owens is an obvious grifter as example, but she delivers on being the Black person, who says all the things Republicans need to use in debates), and they're usually funded by rich people for who the funding is pocket money.

All politics and social causes depend on appeal to emotion, establishment of an in-group social trust bordering on naïveté, and a momentary suspense of critical thinking as applied to whatever political actor or nonprofit etc. wants you to part with your hard-earned money for their benefit. It shouldn’t be surprising that these arenas are vulnerable to cynical self-promoters and con artists.

Good point.

[SInNYC]

This is not about grifting. Its about infighting between party factions especially after the Gaza war, with some factions trying to use this to wipe out DSA who they always disliked for ideological reasons (shades of Corbyn's Labour).

For the NY chapter which is also in financial trouble, DSA spent money on some candidates, but NYS rules require some paperwork for non-parties before they can do that and they hadnt filed that paperwork. According to DSA they followed the guidelines by the Board of Elections - I have no idea if they did, but its entirely plausible for anybody who knows how NY is run. At worst, its sloppy paperhandling by an understaffed organization, but the fines were seven times  their cash reserves.

I have no doubt that some who hopped on the DSA bandwagon were grifters, but thats not what this is about.Maybe there are some cases that are actual grifting but thats not where we are at.

[PSOL]

I think there's nothing more telling than the fact that I believe this forum has more ex-DSA members than current ones.

If anything the less atlas posters active the better chances the DSA has to survive.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think there's nothing more telling than the fact that I believe this forum has more ex-DSA members than current ones. The story I've seen the last couple years is a lot people joined the DSA seeking things like advocating for Medicare For All and a Green New Deal and instead found out their dues were being used to fund leadership visiting Venezuela, absurd no chance causes like prison abolitionists, and vaguely pro-Hamas demonstrations.

That was definitely my experience in the Boston DSA around ~2016-2017. They spent all their time attempting to figure out whether or not a friend of mine was a (((Zionist))) and hogging credit for organizing generic anti-Trump rallies.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

I haven't seen such an expensive circlejerk since Provincetown in June.

[All Along The Watchtower]

This is not about grifting. Its about infighting between party factions especially after the Gaza war, with some factions trying to use this to wipe out DSA who they always disliked for ideological reasons (shades of Corbyn's Labour).

[Vice President Christian Man]

Wow, maybe anti-Westism isn't a popular ideology in the US. But then again neither is Socialism. However I think that most of its failures was the misunderstanding that legitimate Socialism isn't the neo-New Deal/echoes of Prairie Populism movement that Bernie advertised. The later was confusing Socialism for social democracy/the Nordic model.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Wow, maybe anti-Westism isn't a popular ideology in the US. But then again neither is Socialism. However I think that most of its failures was the misunderstanding that legitimate Socialism isn't the neo-New Deal/echoes of Prairie Populism movement that Bernie advertised. The later was confusing Socialism for social democracy/the Nordic model.

Eh, social democracy is historically and conceptually a form of socialism as much as any other; "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" used to be used interchangeably, and to this day it's still not entirely clear what the difference is other than "democratic socialism" being vaguely a bit more hardcore and a bit further towards the edge of the post-1991 Overton window (or, in some cases, being a euphemism for forms of socialism that aren't really democratic at all, which "social democracy" almost never is). The premise of social democracy/democratic socialism is that the wine of socialist goals can and should be poured into the skin of democratic and liberal institutional structures, rather than the skin of authoritarianism and repression. I think that's a premise that still has a lot of power, if only more people would forthrightly and sincerely advocate for it.

[HisGrace]

Gotta love the creative destruction of the free market!

[Fungsumanto]

I mean, it's hard to say for sure, but my guess is that a lot of these people are leaving for a different reason than many people here think. The vibe I get from other socialists online is that the DSA isn't perceived as effective electorally or socialist enough ideologically. Having only one of these would likely be okay, but both at the same time turns people off. If your political organization, which is supposed to believe what you do and elect people who agree, can't win more than a few seats and only exists to be an invisible social democratic wing of the Democrats.....what's the point?

Why support an organization that can only lose and misrepresent you?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This comes up every so often, so here we go again:

Before the twin cataclysms of 1914 and 1917 shattered the international Socialist movement forever, 'Social Democrat' had a very specific definition: it meant Marxist. Most of the parties so named were founded before 1914, and were Marxist parties modeled on the SPD. After 1917 the term came to denote those Marxist parties and organisations that chose democracy over than revolution, though some German writers continued to use the old definition; Walter Benjamin did right up until the very end. It only lost its Marxist connotations during the Cold War, when SPD formally renounced Marxism in 1959. These Marxist connotations are why George Orwell coined - or at least popularised - the phrase 'Democratic Socialist' to describe himself and other socialists opposed to the Soviet Union, rather than use the existing term 'Social Democrat': that term had baggage that he did not wish to be associated with.

It also happens that before 1914 the term 'Labour Party' also had a very specific definition: it meant a political party founded with the explicit intention of representing the interests of 'Labour' within a parliamentary system, and usually one with organic links to the trade union movement in the country in question. Specifically, with organic links to the whole of the trade union movement in the country (or with ambitions in that direction), rather than merely those formally committed to some form of socialist politics. This did not mean that Labour Parties could not be Marxist parties as well: both the Norwegian Labour Party and Poale Zion were Marxist organisations, and there was a small Marxist element within the British Labour Party that was particularly influential in and around London.

If it seems strange that the DSA would use the label given some of the people involved in it, then that is because the organization long pre-dates November 2016 and the people who ran it - and it's predecessor the DSOC - were social democrats, especially in its relative glory years in the 1970s and 80s.