deleted by creator

When people speak of Democratic Socialism, they usually are referring to the ideological position, not just the USian party, for what it’s worth. That’s my point, I’m aware of Red Star caucus and whatnot.

Democratic Centralism is the result of communist parties figuring out what works best through practice. It’s at the core of the fast response times, stability, and popular support of socialist systems. Each point is developed and proven in importance through practice.

Point 3 is just basic democracy. If a group comes to a vote, what’s the point if the minority just refuses to follow? Unity in action is the strength of the working class, it’s what turns the sheer numbers into a mighty sword to fight the bourgeoisie, without unity you have a directionless and mushy form. Further, you can have revotes on decisions if necessary down the line.

Point 4 is not as scary as you think. Recall elections are a core aspect of the electoral system in demcent countries and parties if needed. The lower rungs get to elect the higher rungs, the top is only there because they have won elections, and if they lose the trust of the people they can be ousted.

As for factionalism, it’s a recipe for instability and this is where capitalism thrives. A competent, unified, democratic body is far superior than competing private interests at achieving the goals of the people. It’s part of why China’s government, as an example, has over 90% approval rates, while the US as a two-party system has less than 50% approval rates consistently. Having a single party is not anti-democratic, it means everyone is on the same team and is willing to work together.

Overall, I think you need to actually see the success of demcent orgs like PSL vs how a party like the DSA functions. PSL, with fewer party members, gets pound for pound more done. The DSA is highly divided, its biggest strength is its size, but it can’t weild it properly. Meanwhile, PSL is growing rapidly, and is at the forefront of the No Kings and pro-Palestinian protest movements in the US.

The biggest problem is, that progressives are fighting against the money. Tea Party Republicans didn’t have that problem, since most of their socio-political ideology aligns with Libertarian policies. No taxes, no regulations, no corporate accountability. That draws a lot of support from the kinds of people who were already dissatisfied with the compromise Democrats and Republicans had struck between the elites making more money, and the consumers they use to make it.

The Tea Party and later MAGA are all in on fucking us all over to benefit the ruling class. Most of their voters are just too gullible to realize that. They think they’re somehow “sticking it to the elites”, by giving them everything they could have ever hoped for.

In many ways, it was never a real grassroots movement. It was always just an astroturfed effort. But it demonstrates how you can fundamentally change the entire direction of a party in US politics. One seat at a time…until the new majority votes the way you want them to.

It’s a representative democracy…which means you need to flip seats in Congress in order to take over a party. That’s all. It’s a gradual process, but one that is entirely possible within the current system. We the people, have the power to do this, just by voting.

They didn’t have a single populist in the beginning. They just had “Tea Party Republicans”. Unfortunately, this new “flavor” of conservative was even more racist and unintelligent than the original recipe.

Their voters immediately gravitated towards them, because they were seen as relatable outsiders, whose biggest policy position was to do whatever it took to hurt “the left”, and/or anyone who even suggested the idea of “working together” with them. (ie. RINOs)

Trump just eventually took advantage of this movement and declared himself its leader. But when it first started, he still considered himself a Democrat.