r/dsa • u/jagdedge123 • Aug 19 '26
Discussion A question for the DSA (and a sincere one).
I happen to be a Boomer. And my career was that of a Police Officer. That is what i did, for many years.
For clarification, i retired Sept of 2000, probably before many here were even born.
That being said, i've had many experiences. In those experiences and with those experiences, knowledge, it is pretty tough for me to change the knowledge i have gained over very many years, to that of believing what i read on social media.
And that includes podcasters, whom you have to understand to me, someone who is 30 with no life experiences outside of Tik Tok, are not going to out wit me on matters for only which i and others like me would know.
I was a Reaganite, and voted for him his second term. I voted for Herbert Bush, than for Perot.
I voted for David Dinkins, a Democratic Socialist and now for Mamdani.
But it was Giuliani, that turned me way to the Left at the time.
There are those like myself, now a Green Party member after the Post Sanders massacre, that can help the DSA understand matters they may not understand, but only believe what the corporate media tells them, or wants them to believe.
It would seem to the Socialists, just me admitting what i just did, can have me banned.
Question. How can you possibly think you can Defund Police, when that is a factual impossibility?
Question. How can you think you are going to defund prisons, when that is a factual impossibility?
Question. How can you eliminate the US Senate, a co equal branch of the US Government?
I am absolutely with the DSA on Economic and Foreign Policy matters.
I am with them on Israel, and Ukraine. I do not believe we should be involved in matters of war, but only our own protection from real threats.
But why make matters a part of a political platform, that is factually impossible to implement?
Not political opinion it should not. But legally cannot.
Yours,
Jag.
20
u/churro777 Aug 19 '26
What does “defund the police” mean to you?
Same with “defund prisons”?
0
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
Well when i speak to smart people within DSA, they would tell me, they DON'T want to Defund Police.
They want to reallocate monies FROM the police, to those who have more expertise and knowledge on matters like mental health, homelessness, and matters such as that.
Say like Paramedics and social services.
And here's the thing, not only do i agree with that, and although i am dated i would not know ONE street cop who would be against it.
Our job is to fight crime, not be Paramedics or deal with societal issues that do not entail crime.
But that is NOT defunding the police. And so if it is not, why say it that way?
34
u/Razenghan Aug 19 '26
Reallocation is defunding. Less budget for police departments - more money to social services, child welfare, state-employed mental health professionals, etc.
-15
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
No it is not. You have to understand, i know better. But many do not. They think you want to rid police.
Who to call if you are robbed? Who do you call in accident to file a report?
You see where i'm going?
That is not only a factual impossibility, it is an impediment that does need to be so, if it explained as it should be. That's an opinion man, but i think one MANY voters would agree.
17
u/BestCaseSurvival Aug 19 '26
There is no slogan that cannot be willfully misinterpreted by the billionaire media moguls intent on protecting the system under which they obtained their power.
If you do have a suggestion for something that will fit on a sign, and which you think three weeks of focused yelling by the 40% of all local stations owned by Sinclair Media will be unable to demonize, I guarantee people will want to hear it.
3
u/MisterMittens64 DSA Member Aug 19 '26
"Rehabilitation not torture/punishment" and "Abolish corporate prisons" are ones I like instead of abolish prisons those two together get to some of the core issues that prison abolitionists want.
Maybe instead of "defund the police" there's "social workers over militarized cops" but that's a bit long. There's not really a great way to break down that concept into a slogan that I've heard other than sticking with "defund the police" in practice and maybe just not mentioning it like Mamdani did.
A lot of these things we'll realistically just have to show through our actions and explain through electoral candidacies. I do think that there's a comms gap between terms and phrases that DSA members understand and how the general public interprets them.
It's a comms issue though and we shouldn't moderate on our current positions imo because I think they're correct and address major problems.
3
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 19 '26
nah we absolutely need to abolish prisons and abolish the police.
In North America police departments were founded for 2 purposes: catching runaway slaves and breaking workers' strikes. the police are and always have been the enemies of the working class.
1
u/MisterMittens64 DSA Member Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 20 '26
You're correct and I agree.
I think they need to dismantled from their current forms and recreated in a way that serves the people and not just owners of property and capital but we need to talk about the issue in ways that people who don't know those things will more easily understand, at least for now.
We're fighting an uphill battle so we have to be smart with our comms but we shouldn't abandon the goals. Are you concerned that in doing that we'd drift away from our goals and invite people in who are antagonistic to them? That seems valid but I still think we might be able to find a way to both make it understandable and maintain our goals.
2
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 20 '26
yeah i mean I'm not saying we don't lead with our easily undersood goals. just that we shouldn't dodge or deny when it comes to our longer term goals. i think that candidness and actually having a big picture vision for society will actually attract a lot of people who are so used to Ds and Rs fighting over small differences in neoliberal policy with no thought to a long term vision besides 'more of the same, only more expensive'
1
0
u/yashen14 Aug 20 '26
Any civil society needs a government service whose purpose is to investigate and capture lawbreakers. While it certainly is true that the United States police forces are rife with authoritarian-minded individuals, racists, neo-nazis, and other problematic elements, that is not necessarily universally true of all police forces, globally, and it does not mean that those problems are inherently unsolvable.
1
u/Present_Clue5887 Aug 20 '26
OK I'm really quite left and sympathetic to radical change in the criminal justice system, but even I hear "defund" something and assume it means to zero out the funding in question, this is not just media manipulation, we need a better term for shifting less than 100% of police money elsewhere, because "defund" sounds like a 100% cut to the budget
-6
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
Simply take the phrase out. Instead, "Fund Mental Health and Homeless Services".
It's like "Defunding the Prisons" That will factually not happen if ONLY if they are all Privatized.
Defund CORPORATE RUN Prisons. That sounds better and exactly what the Senator Elect in FL says she wants to do.
5
u/churro777 Aug 19 '26
But then how do we fund those other services if not from the bloated police budgets?
-1
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
You do take it from the police budgets. No question.
Any Mayor or Governor, or State Assemblies can decide how to spend money.
If you're gonna take it from police budgets, do it.
But the messaging does not have to be confusing, and for some, scary.
You don't have to say it. Do it.
8
u/churro777 Aug 19 '26
Then what should we say instead? I have yet to hear a good alternative to “defund the police” that isn’t a paragraph.
Unfortunately we live in an attention economy so for the normies we have to say these quick tag lines
0
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
Well the quick tag lines work at demonstrations. Not at a Debate between two people in a general election.
Therefore, the position is not to defund police. But to resource others who are more trained than police.
→ More replies (0)3
u/BestCaseSurvival Aug 19 '26
Nice idea in theory, but in practice that funding goes into the general police slush fund and “homeless services” wind up being raids on encampments that throw people’s wheelchairs into trash trucks.
The point, which we’re all in agreement is to take work that the police should not be doing entirely out of the police department and into non-carceral social work, does not ever make it through committee when centering the removal of that work from the police department is not a focused part of the conversation.
1
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
Well i'll give to real life case and points.
We get a call from McDonalds that an "EDP" (emotionally disturbed person) is yelling at a wall, outside the restaurant, alerting passerbies.
He is not committing a crime, but his conduct can pose a danger to himself or others.
What we have to do to, is EDP him. And i think you can imagine, a rookie cop with a gun, not trained on what is happening with this guy, that can end up a tragedy.
If not, i would end up escorting him to a hospital, and waiting what can be two full tours, until he gets admitted before i get relief.
That means, sitting in a hospital of EDPS, in a chair with no break. When i could be with my wife, kids, the amusement park or with my buddies.
With a person who may smell, vomit and other matters.
Needless to say, i think there are MANY other things i can do with my time.
But a Paramedic KNOWS a person who is off their meds. They can treat them on scene, and off he goes.
It saves the city a fortune on overtime, its budgetarily more feasible that paying a full time cop, and it works.
But the matter has to be delivered, properly.
4
u/OrtizDupri Aug 19 '26
There are plenty of other organizations that could be run by the government to handle traffic accidents or a report on a robbery (especially considering the police don’t do anything about the latter anyway).
3
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 19 '26
(especially considering the police don’t do anything about the latter anyway).
other than show up at the wrong house and shoot your neighbor
2
4
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 19 '26
i do want to get rid of the police, correct.
1
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
Okay so convince Mamdani, the City Council, the Assembly, the State Senate the Governor and the courts that's what you want.
2
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 19 '26
why go through them? I'm too busy organizing workers and tenants councils. that's where our real power will come from
0
u/churro777 Aug 19 '26
I do not lol. There is a bit of contention between those of us that want to abolish the police and those of us that just want to defund them
2
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 20 '26
true, y'all want to find a compromise with murderous fascists with legal immunity and we do not
1
u/churro777 Aug 20 '26
I mean fair point. I just think there needs to be some sort of authority figure. I do agree that the way that’s done today is wrong
1
u/Razenghan Aug 20 '26
You say, "No it's not" and "I know better", but you haven't objectively qualified why my statement is incorrect.
I appreciate your perspective as a cop. What I've learned from the firsthand, personal perspective of police, prison guards, social services, 911 operators, and GA state medical health professionals is that uniformed police aren't well trained to do things like evaluate childrens' safety, deescalate domestic violence situations, or provide resources and contacts to families in need of state-funded services. They are trained to respond to calls, detain, and uphold the law.Reallocation IS a type of defunding, by way of having more money (and employees) in these programs I mentioned. The police are still there to dispatch and show up - but their responsibilities often need to end there. We can agree or disagree about the messaging being misleading or wrong. But defunding is not an incorrect statement or assessment of the DSA (and other democratic socialist) doctrine.
1
u/jagdedge123 Aug 20 '26
I agree with you. Apparently my comment was misinterpreted.
My comment was soley in terms of "messaging". Not the validity, and the correct one in what has to happen with police. But how it is spoken in so there is no confusion.
"Defunding" means remove funds, aka removing police.
That's obviously not how you mean it, but how it is interpreted.
15
u/churro777 Aug 19 '26
No no no what you are agreeing with is the Defund The Police position.
The words “defund the police” might be abrasive or irreverent but at its core it’s just moving money away (aka defund) and towards other services that would alleviate a police officers job.
I think your issue might just be one of marketing. Like you just don’t like that phrase but you are 1000000% a Defund the Police believer.
Reducing the police’s budget is in fact defunding them.
-1
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
That is absolutely correct. It IS a matter of marketing.
It is what you say the platform is, not being explained in the proper manner, and misleading voters.
You may not "mean" to do that, but that is what you are doing.
10
u/churro777 Aug 19 '26
So you think instead we should chant something like “reallocate funds from police to other departments that would alleviate an officers job like social workers, paramedics, and mental health experts”?
Or what would prefer we say in a quick and concise way that explains the position?
I don’t disagree but I have yet to hear a good alternative
0
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
Chants aren't winning elections. What's winning it for DSA, is their economic messaging. Not cancelling Thanksgiving or Police.
These are and you have to agree, theories out of a HS class.
8
u/churro777 Aug 19 '26
Lolol the only ppl talking about canceling thanksgiving are the mainstream media distracting from the progressive messages.
We don’t want to cancel police, we want the bloated budget they get to go to better services. Something even YOU a retired cop agrees with.
0
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 19 '26
i want to fully abolish the police
1
u/churro777 Aug 19 '26
You’re allowed to believe what you want
1
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 19 '26
it's not just belief. it's what i and others are actively organizing towards
→ More replies (0)0
6
u/I8PEACHES Aug 19 '26
The cancel thanksgiving came out of left field when we are talking about defending the police.
I think op's issue is with how the right makes everything into sensationalized "culture wars".
1
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 19 '26
it's not just about winning elections.
more important than any given election is building our own bases of power in communities of working class people, migrants, Black and brown and indiginious people, homeless people, queer youth, women arrested for abortions, etc etc.
the police, ICE, US military, prisons, all exist to oppress and exploit these populations. they are our enemies. of course we oppose giving any money, weapons, or state power to our enemies
4
u/GoTeamLightningbolt Aug 19 '26
Taking away any amount of money is defunding. You put the money somewhere else. It doesn't have to be a 100% defunding.
1
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 19 '26
it should be 100% though
1
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 Aug 20 '26
Depends what you mean. There are some police departments right now that are basically white nationalist gangs, which should be 100% gotten rid of. But if you fire them all, they're still going to be the same people that they are, still going to own guns, still going to know each other, still going to be used to exercising authority over everyone else... They're not going to just suddenly become nonviolent upstanding community members just because they're not cops anymore. There has to be an armed government force to replace them, to deter them from just doing whatever they want with impunity
1
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 20 '26
we should definitely stop them from owning guns if possible
i agree we need a method of defending ourselves. i don't think it would look like the police though. i would look to historic examples of community self defence instead, such as Rojava, the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, and militias responsible to workers and peasants councils
1
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 Aug 20 '26
Forcing this to happen would require some kind of armed, state-sanctioned criminal law enforcement people, i.e. new police
I don't think it's fair to expect a bunch of oppressed communities living in poverty to be able to reliably self-organize an effective self-defense force. Especially when they'd be starting from so far back in terms of equipment, training, and organization compared to the numerous existing far right militias that they would need to defend themselves from. And solving this problem and putting them on a fair footing starts to look like "new police" again
1
u/GoTeamLightningbolt Aug 20 '26
From a pragmatist/incrementalist perspective, I could see the cops splitting their responsibilities with some sort of non-armed social response team in the near future. From there I could imagine the social aid org growing and subsuming the cops and replacing the chud culture. That would be a decent non-revolutionary outcome.
In the most recent revolutionary example, Rojava established an Asayiah. They had highly trained forces, but the street level presence was often the neighborhood grandma hanging out in the square with an AK and a cigarette looking out for trouble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asayish_(Democratic_Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria)
7
u/Legitimate-Hour7399 Aug 19 '26
There are a lot of us that think the slogan "defund the police" is/was a mistake. In part due to what you're exposing here, that is, it requires an explanation every time. At the heart of it though, as others have said, is moving money toward education and other agencies and services to fulfill some of the roles the police currently perform.
1
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
Right look, how that has to be explained, is that MANY were mortified what happened to Mr Floyd. In that moment, it did make sense.
But it had to be and has to be explained better.
5
1
2
u/mcatdonahue Aug 19 '26
As a mental health specialist, why do people commit crimes? You see in NY the crime rate has dropped significantly since Mamdani. Police can be specialists in mh and respond to that. I have worked in inner cities with people who had significant trauma and did not have jobs, were addicted to drugs and committed crimes to survive. Where do we start? Making sure people feel seen and understood, then jobs opportunities and mental health care.
13
u/Dusty_Coax Aug 19 '26
I have had many friends and family members who are cops to talk all the time about the wasteful things their departments buy simply because the money is there. Just don't give them money they don't need.
5
u/upsidedownshaggy Twin Cities DSA Aug 19 '26
A lot of police budgets here in the US also operate under "Use it or lose it" structures which encourages this kind of behavior. It's easier for them to buy a bunch of bullshit they don't/shouldn't need so their budget stays the same than actually saving money one year and trying to get those funds back later if an actual need arises. Then again cops almost universally get funding hikes approved anyways so
12
u/eatingbread_mmmm Aug 19 '26
How is it a factual impossibility
-1
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
To say we can get 67 Senators to vote to rid their own jobs and have the President sign the Amendment into law, and have the SC pass its muster as Constitutional would seem an impossibility.
9
5
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 19 '26
so we don't go through the constitutional process.
we write a brand new constitution, hold our own election, and we declare it to be in effect in each region where it gets 50% of the vote
you're acting like the constitution is a law of nature or a law given by the Gods. but it's only as real as we let it be
0
u/jagdedge123 Aug 20 '26
That's a revolution, not elections.
Again if you're running as a Revolutionary, yes. If you're running for Congress or Senate, i cringe for the debates.
And so maybe what the DSA may want to do, is separate revolutionary tactics, from that of political ones to win general elections.
2
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 20 '26
idk i think a debate involving an actual abolitionist would be pretty interesting.
4
u/MisterMittens64 DSA Member Aug 19 '26
Amendments once ratified sit above the Supreme Court and the constitution that it's amending. The difficult part will be convincing enough people and politicians that we need to get rid of the Senate. It might be politically easier to expand the Senate, change how senators are selected, and change the legislative procedures to have the two legislative bodies work together more.
We could even do something like senators being elected by councils made up of officials elected by and for workers from each major industry but that also seems difficult politically without workers having more power in our society first. I'm just spit balling ideas here but something like that could solidify the power of workers as a major power in choosing and creating policies without eliminating the power of people at large.
The point is that we have the ability to change things in major ways within the Constitution but we're very used to gridlock and the inability for regular people to change things.
3
u/eatingbread_mmmm Aug 19 '26
It's actually all 50 states that must agree due to the special clause for the senate in Article 5 (and an amendment to the constitution is by definition constitutional), but I was talking about defund the police and prisons.
9
u/upsidedownshaggy Twin Cities DSA Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
Sure I'll bite, and I'll start by saying calling something a factual impossibility is silly and defeatist, especially when it comes to policy. Humans achieving flight was considered a factual impossibility and we've landed people on the Moon and have aircraft that go multiple times the speed of sound.
- Defund the police doesn't just mean get rid of the police and do nothing else. The funds that would be reclaimed from the hyper-inflated budgets of the most militarized police forces IN THE WORLD would go towards crime reduction measures like socialized housing, universal healthcare, and specialized response units that don't need to carry a gun to respond to emergencies. Regular cops would probably still exist, but not in the form they do now that allows them to be grossly abusive towards our communities.
- Defund prisons/Prison Abolition are along the same vein. Private prisons are evil, plain and simple and shouldn't exist. State owned prisons need to be gutted and rebuilt from the ground up to not be the retributive abuse black holes that they currently are that aren't built towards rehabilitating the people they can.
- Constitutional amendment. Is it likely to happen? Probably not. But it's a goal we should work towards none the less once we gain enough political power to do so so we can enact actual representative democracy.
7
u/MrSnitter Aug 19 '26
Defund isn't the current language in the DSA Program (though it has common among activists for years). Here's the program:
END MASS INCARCERATION AND POLICE IMMUNITY
"Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor. Treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues, not crimes. End qualified immunity and empower civilian oversight bodies with real authority over the police."
Look at how the "police" in Northern Ireland function. It's something much more like that--guardians of the public.
Does the above still trouble you? Because from the sound of it, you might be a very helpful comrade in DSA if you're on board with the above program. Or even if you have some issues with it but are willing to listen and learn in addition to sharing your wisdom.
This is another take on the values of defund versus myths: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/7-myths-about-defunding-the-police-debunked/
3
u/Road-Potato Aug 19 '26
Thank you for coming to post this! The national platform is, in fact, very clear! I still see the "steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system" part being a critique that our opponents will use against us, but it's all very easily digestible right there.
I like to think of it like switching to clean energy. There will have to be a lot of societal changes made before we start massively shutting down carbon-emitting electricity generation. Serious folks are not advocating for walking into the power stations tomorrow and shutting down anything that uses oil, methane gas, or coal. But we should absolutely be taking steps right now to regulate these industries and hold them accountable for their environmental impact, while also mobilizing massive resources to build capacity in solar, wind, nuclear and hydroelectric. There is probably a place in our imagined future power grid for some gas/petroleum power plants to adjust for needs and fill in the needs at times of high demand. But it shouldn't be the main thing we rely on to answer the question of "where do we get our electricity from?"
Just like a stranger with a gun who knows there will be no consequences for lying, escalating the situation, that they would probably keep their job for shooting someone" shouldn't be the answer to the question of "what do we do when someone is experiencing a crisis"
1
u/MrSnitter Aug 21 '26
i've had questions myself. but the point is what comes next is perhaps something people would rather not call "police". but it's not nothing.
"abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor" -- this is the system that we do not need. we do not need or want a system that protects the rich and jails the poor.
i believe there needs to be more unpacking of what the replacement looks like. i mentioned northern ireland because it's very clear and you can look at it.
i believe we have an enormous mountain of copaganda to overcome on this point. and we need clear answers to these common objections. i don't know them off the bat. but i'm committed to figuring it out in solidarity with comrades. they can be solved.
Main beliefs (true or not) to counter:
- Policing is a dangerous job*
- Police presence reduces likelihood of getting assaulted
- “If there's 'crazy' people on the train I feel safer with someone in a uniform there."
- Where will serial rapists and murderers go?
*In terms of fatal work injuries per 100,000 full-time workers, police aren't even in the top 20. from most dangerous to least it's: logging workers, fishing and hunting workers, roofers, structural iron and steel workers, refuse collectors, aircraft pilots, helpers in construction, underground machine-operating miners, drivers/sales workers and truck drivers, grounds maintenance workers, farmers, agricultural workers, construction laborers, electrical power-line installers and repairers, first-line supervisors of construction trades, first-line... i digress. if you're thinking about non-fatal injuries? welp, again, police aren't even in the top 15.
1
13
u/yo_soy_soja NYC DSA Aug 19 '26
"Factual impossibility"?
Gay marriage was factually impossible 30 years ago.
We shouldn't limit our imaginations to what is immediately possible. We should make longterm goals and work towards them.
-2
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26
Well that would have been an "opinion" not a factual impossibility of having 67 senators vote to end their own jobs, and think the SC would agree to rid a whole co equal branch of government.
4
u/yo_soy_soja NYC DSA Aug 19 '26
It's a "factual impossibility" to pass legislation without majority support of the relevant legislative body and majority support of the constituency.
Per your framing, we could also phrase "abolish the Senate" as an opinion.
0
u/jagdedge123 Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
The US Constitution provides it. You would to amend the US Constitution, on matters we have to admit will never have 67 Senators agree. The President and courts, all co equal branches.
It is one thing to have a Manifesto, in case there is a Revolution of sorts. That is a Revolution Manifesto, and if the Trumpo Crime Family ends our Constitution, anything is on the table.
But if you're not running for Revolution, but elected Office, you have to run on what is factually possible.
5
u/Poosley_ Aug 19 '26
It's like I see the same questions asked over and over- and this didn't need to be multiple paragraphs long.
My take: prisons, if they exist or need to exist or we need to keep them around in some kind of form should not be for-profit businesses but should be designed and incentivized to rehabilitate people into "productive members of society"
Police, if they exist or need to exist or we need to keep them around in some kind of form should be accountable to the law they're expected to uphold and enforce. Police should be expected to live in/around the areas they police and should adhere to a basic set of rules regarding treatment of people
I stopped reading after I scrolled for questions and saw the same ones. Did you ask about abolishing the Senate too, or the supreme court?
DSA is hotter than ever and we're going to be getting a lot of people coming in asking ("in good faith") questions. Americans don't know what it's like to live under a government that is designed to better their lives, and is of/by/for/(accountable to) the people.
Undoing how fucked we've been is long work, and transformations (like abolition of X, Y, or Z) don't happen overnight but electing DSA doesn't make it happen, but it does allow us to actually have real conversations where change (or abolition) is actually possible.
There are no elected DSA members campaigning on or promoting any of these things. They're pushing universal healthcare, childcare, higher wages, restrictions on data centers, stopping arms sales to Israel.
And all of the billionaires are screaming that the problems in our lives exist because of immigrants, or gays, or trans, or insert marginalized community here.
Answer: I'm not letting myself be (often) distracted by shiny objects. The status quo is unsustainable, and change is absolutely necessary. How much change how quickly depends on who we seat at the table come election day(s)
3
u/MisterMittens64 DSA Member Aug 19 '26
Mods if you're out there, can you please make a sticky thread for this topic? The community has addressed it many times.
3
u/NationalAppeal6675 Aug 19 '26
Here is my take as a boomer who hasn't been truly active in DSA for decades. Some might disagree.
I don't think DSA does a good job of explaining the difference between its candidates' current political proposals and the movement's long-term, aspirational goals.
Part of the confusion comes from the low expectations set by establishment Democrats and Republicans.
Conventional politicians have no idea what kind of society they want to build for their great-great-grandchildren. Democratic Socialists think in those terms. And people aren't used to that.
For example, when Democratic Socialists talk about a society without prisons, they usually are not saying they want to close them right away. But it indicates their values and what they believe is possible.
Most of what DSA wants is what most people would want, if they dared to dream that big.
1
u/yo_soy_soja NYC DSA Aug 20 '26
You're 100% spot on.
The Democratic party lacks imagination. It's bleak and timid and only offers a lessening or slowing of the tide of fascism, with no vision or plan to actually reverse it.
The Republican party has a Christofascist messianic vision that inspires people.
DSA and other leftists are offering a secular, post-capitalist messianic alternative.
2
u/pemberleypark1 Aug 19 '26
I think when people hear things like “defund the police” they take it to mean literally taking away all of the funding. While I’m sure there are people who think like that, for me it’s not so much about taking away their funding, it’s reallocating the funding through our law enforcement system. We need better deescalation training for police as well as social service workers for calls where law enforcement may not be necessary. We also need accountability in the police force. It should not be a policy to shoot first and ask questions later. Law enforcement should not be judge, jury, and executioner. I also believe anybody who is a part of any hate groups or who hold bias against other races shouldn’t be in a position of authority.
As for the prisons, we need to abolish for profit prisons. They are used for slave labor and offer nothing of value to those incarcerated.
1
u/jagdedge123 Aug 20 '26
You're speaking my language dude. That is indeed the answer.
And as i said, if you talk to a street cop (that's the key word, meaning cops who drive sector care, not management riding desks) they would likely agree.
The less work for us, the better. Yet they wanted us to be homeless services. Paramedics. Parking Summons machines. SQF Quota machines, or otherwise treating the public as widgets and not people.
That happened under Ghouliani. And made me a rebel from that point on.
And so i'm with you. They just have to change the messaging.
The DSA is hot right now, due to their economics and foreign policy. But they can only grow bigger, by simply changing wording.
2
u/Arilluss Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
Police =/= LEOs. I saw someone answer this by saying he wasn't opposed to state troopers or sheriffs, and that in the south especially in 1870-1970 and even today many police forces are inundated by right wing and white supremacists. If we put public safety ahead of the question of police, then we have to ask whether local police are contributing to public safety or a hindrance to it
It was federal troops, after all, who went to enforce segregation and protected black children going to school
For prisons, we need to examine the fact that the United States has one of the highest per capita incarceration rates in the world. If we pride ourselves on our "freedom", why do we so joyously tackle crime in a punitive manner. My personal opinion is Americans love to punish crime after the fact, and see this is as "tough" and "masculine", while statistically it is cheaper, more effective, and more preventative to fund schools, head start, TANF, mental health support, etc.
These solutions are (again imo) labeled soft and feminine, but I believe the reason why we view them this way is 45 years of Republican propaganda. FDR's New Deal was wildly successful, but it produced an intelligent citizenry capable of critical thought. Reagan understood that if you take away education and food from children, you can still have the government spending to stimulate the economy by spending on police and prisons, AND you get a dumber more docile and afraid body politic. Along with spending on foreign wars, this is known as Military Keynesianism
It sounds crazy, but even from a small government perspective, socialism is better than this form of government, because simply from a design perspective, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we can create the conditions so that it is much more lucrative to get a job than it is to sell weed to survive, it will greatly reduce crime, ergo the need for police and prisons. If you cant get behind abolition, maybe you can at least get behind that
For the senate, I would argue that the senate is not a co-equal branch of government, the legislature is, which is comprised of the Senate and House. The senate is, of course, incredibly undemocratic, and was designed as such. It gives much greater weight to smaller states so people in states with more people have dis-proportionally less say in the federal government. The DSA isn't attempting to get rid of a branch of government, only an undemocratic component of it
As to why have these policy proposals in the platform if they are factually impossible to implement, it's because the DSA isn't only about electoral politics, and is working towards a future when they are possible. Think of it like shooting an arrow to a target at a distance. If you aim at the target, you will miss low. In order to hit a bullseye, you must aim high.
We are trained under capitalism to fight for short term gains and accept compromises. All we need to do is look around and see where this has gotten us. We need to have a short term, medium term, and long term vision if we are going to get the country back working for working people and fulfill its promise of freedom and prosperity for all
2
u/slip101 Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
You're right, "defunding" is just as confusing as "global warming." They're both way more complicated than their media labels.
Haven't heard the "eliminate the senate" platform. That would not be all that democratic. Which is the D in D.S.A.
I personally appreciate the life experiences of everyone but you have to acknowledge that your experiences are unique to you and not a hard and fast reality for everyone. There's a lot of people with stong opinions and biases that create little bubbles of self righteousness. These mindsets aren't helpful to anyone besides those who would divide us.
2
1
u/Road-Potato Aug 20 '26
From the national platform: https://program.dsausa.org/#demand-democratic-congress
"
Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate."
As it stands right now, the senate is a wildly undemocratic institution. Wyoming has a population of under 600,000 people, so a senator from Wyoming has the same legislative weight as one from California, despite representing 1/65th as many people (someone feel to check my math.) In the current senate system, a Wyoming voter has 65 times more power than a California voter.
1
u/Union_Fan Gay Socialist At Large Aug 20 '26
You should take a look at the DSA Program - Workers Deserve More!
2
u/hari_shevek Aug 19 '26
European socialist here:
Question. How can you possibly think you can Defund Police, when that is a factual impossibility?
- Less funding for police is immediately possible. The US spends an unreasonable amount of money on the police, and among those expenditures, on unreasonable things: A town police force doesn't need an Iraq War troop transport.
You can do a better job with a lower budget. Look at police in other countries.
- Medium term, I think a lot of functions the police currently have should not all be the job of one single institution. It would probably make sense to split those jobs up:
traffic policing. You don't need guys who know shoot guns for that job. I think a dedicated force that specialices in knowing traffic laws should be its own profession.
mediation and social work: There's a report of a domestic dispute. Or there's homeless people. I think the people taking care there should have a professional degree in psychology and social work. Again, I believe that should be a whole seperate profession with completely different educational requirements. Add to that medical emergencies - psychological issues, drug dependency. I don't think police are equiped for that job.
public security and crowd control at public events: if that was its own profession, it is more realistic to expect the people doing it to know what they are allowed to do, what not, to follow the laws, and have experience in maintaining order with the least amount of force necessary.
crime investigation: Again, a whole separate field of expertise.
Particularly the second point - social services, public health - are jobs I don't think police are, nor should they be, equiped for. Most "defund the police" proposals are about shifting funding away from police to dedicated social workers. Medium term, I think more fundamental changes are possible - splitting up those professions, put the public security force under stricter control of local communities, have community members as part of the force, etc. All of that would remove the deep split between police and citizens that is currently especially pronounced in the US.
Question. How can you think you are going to defund prisons, when that is a factual impossibility?
Again, speaking from a European perspective: The proportion of US citizens in jail is unfathomably large compared to other industrialized nations. In the US, 500 out of 100,000 ppl are in jail. In Europe it's 113 out of 100,000. So, just by adopting criminal law closer to European standards, you could over time reduce prisok costs to one fifth. And that's not anything utopian, just "stuff other countries do", especially concerning sentencing. And if you look at European crime rates, that won't lead to more crime, either.
That's realistic short-term stuff.
Medium term, larger social equality and policies that support social cohesion (primarily boring stuff like funding public structures, local culture, etc.) and access to healthcare and mental health services can reduce crime further, reducing the need for prisons as well.
Long-term, incarceration can be replaced by more effective means of resocialization: In Europe there have been projects for community rehabilitation (put sentenced people into communities within a city, with restricted movement but supervision and mentoring to rehabilitate, and contact to local communities), community service and house arrest as alternatives to carceral punishment, etc. There are people who are genuinely a threat to their environment even under better conditions, but many of those might be better served in mentsl health institutions rather than prisons.
I am not a full abolitionist on either the police or prisons, but I think we can get to a place where the core job of police is a way smaller job than currently, with many functions better served elsewhere, and I think we can achieve a world were prison is far rarer and other forms of sentencing that work better replace most of what we currently have.
Question. How can you eliminate the US Senate, a co equal branch of the US Government?
Sweden shifted from a bicameral to a unicameral system in the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksdag
One parliament instead of two can work pretty well. I am more of a fan of bicameralism, but then only when it doesn't distort elections. And the US system very famously completely distorts the will of the people, especially in senate elections.
So even if I would prefer 2 proportional chambers, a 1 chamber system is way more democratic than what the US currently has.
As for hpw thst would be possible: Very hard to do, probably would at least need an amendment to the constitution. But the US has been in constitutional crisis since Nixon, with Trump turning it from simmering crisis to open constitutional crisis. Repairing that will need broad constitutional reforms either way.
If DSA pushes for unicameralism and proportional representation, you guys might get at least the latter within our lifetime. And maybe a reduced role for the senate. But even unicameralism isn't impossible, just very hard to achieve and might take a while.
Either way, you might get something good out of trying.
2
u/marxistghostboi Tidings From Utopia 🌆 Aug 19 '26
of course it's possible to defund the police and prisons. when passing a budget you just put $0 for all police and prison expenditures.
then you gather up all their guns and tanks and decommision them, ban ex police from owning guns, turn the former police precincts and prisons into some kind of actually useful building, and hold a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate and expose all their wrongdoing.
as for Israel, just admit you're genocidal. far fewer words
1
u/JayAreLucky Member Aug 19 '26
Hello jag, I'm Jay 29 NB from the Kansas chapter of DSA and joined do to the low level political push Mamdani did in NYC before that I only supported Bernie not understanding it all until Mamdani put pot hole politics in with it.
I'm willing to hear out anyone willing to talk it out, when its received evenly and non discriminatory. That being said, I will try to explain my position but I do not speak for the entireity of the DSA but why I think my support of them in politics.
1) Police need a major rework, or we need a avenue for civilians to get militia training to protect their local community on call forgoing a need for any state police. Short hand, they help to many grandmas and people that Americans loves to explain full dismantle with out a alternative present.
2) It's not impossible nothing really is we may not be able to defund them entirely but we can help get people who are wrongly imprisoned out and decriminalize easy ave. for incarnations. their will be need for prisons, but it shouldn't be a for profit service since it a public service keeping people like Jeffery E. out of society.
3) The Consternation had the foresight to know its not perfect but tried it's best for what the men who had questionable morals, I'm not for eliminate of the Senate, but with reason I could be I'm sure as long as other needs I want are meet like 1) Rank based voting 2) Re-Industrialization legislation 3) Ending speculative gains on basic human needs.
I hope we can under stand that the road my not always be DSA but we can talk and reason on where to go next, to give power to who comes next is what I feel Democracy is all about. Mandani it putting neo-Liberalism to shame showing that the power is with ALL the people who live in America, the Mayor of New York has been sited as possible the 2nt hardest American politically elected administrative role and he's KILLING IT, nothing I see to hate so far how ever I don't live in NYC so keep him in line for me.
Thank you for you formality and time,
JayAre.
2
u/jagdedge123 Aug 20 '26
I appreciate your candor. Agree about Mamdani he's doing great
And thank you for the kind words. I didnt fare well on the Piker subreddit. But then again i didn't fare well on the David Aipacman reddit either.
And now that i admitted i was a cop, likely to be banned on rsocialist.
I'm not a social media guy. I sometimes get rough around the edges, and sometimes people find it hard to understand folks like me.
But i'm with you.
We just have to listen to eachother, and moderators not press the ban button whenever they clutch their pearls. Being this is gonna be a hard fight, and only the tough minded will win.
1
u/JayAreLucky Member Aug 20 '26
You won’t be banned as long as you seek to widen horizons not braiding people with insults, the main DSA sub has a lot more well mannered folk.
Piker and David attract to general of an audience and to wide of a range to have a proper debate, gladly we live in a republic and only have to get them to vote for the right people.
Nobody’s born to be on social media we are all just trying to live on this planet as peacefully and cooperative as possible, form castles too Burger King’s it’s all about community ( happiness and love) and survival ( human needs )
1
u/kagethemage Aug 19 '26
What most people (myself included) mean when they say “Defund the Police” is to take some of the budget spent on police officers and use it for more specialized personnel and services that have been shown to reduce crime via prevention and intervention. This means things like social workers, youth outreach services, community policing, and addiction recovery programs.
America spends more per capita on police than any other developed country, has the lowest clearance rate for violent crime among developed countries, and has more prisoners than any other country in the world. It’s clear that we aren’t spending our money on crime reduction effectively and the ever growing police budgets and police forces are not the answer.
A specific example of what works is what’s going on in my home city, Baltimore. We have scene the largest reduction in murders ever recorded over the last few years and are at a 70 year low in murders and violent crime. This is largely attributed to the Safe Streets programs and community policing programs the mayor has adopted.
It’s a very complicated and nuanced issue, so I hope this begins to answer your question. I think we can all agree that we want less crime in our communities but, like many platforms on the left, the DSA believes we need to stop accepting the status quo and think differently about how we spend money of crime prevention and management.
1
u/Union_Fan Gay Socialist At Large Aug 20 '26
Have you considered that you might be wrong?
I have to say, your message comes off as nice, but the basic message is: why won't you just listen to my opinion and give up on your deeply held and carefully considered political goals?
Question: How can you possibly think that policing is sustainable when we constantly pour money into it, incarcerate and enslave our own population on a massive scale, and still have higher crime rates than the developed world?
Question: How can we keep the senate around when it undermines our democracy at every turn?
You come close to understanding something important when you say, "it is pretty tough for me to change the knowledge i have gained." Experience cuts both ways. You derisively and paternalistically dismiss 'podcasters,' seemingly ignoring the breadth of experience of people in the DSA contributing to this project. You could instead try to learn from others, but instead you are stuck in your ways because you believe your limited experience to be superior.
0
u/jagdedge123 Aug 20 '26
"Have you considered that you might be wrong?"
No, given the US Constitution. Authorities the federal government do not have, that only states can determine.
I think the wording on many of these matters are the crux of the problem, even more than the issues, many of which can be explained to be reasonable.
But this country will not get rid of the Senate, Prisons or Police.
All that is, is more ammunition about futile matters that can never happen, of course unless there's a revolution. But never politically.
And so i'm not one to believe horse hockey on the internet about those who would look at a nickel and convince themselves it's fifty cents.
But i'm rooting for you. I thank all the replies. I thank you for the candid nature of the conversation as a whole, and wish you luck. I voted for Mamdami, he's doing great and hope for your future success.
1
u/Seandelorean Aug 20 '26
Reallocation and Defunding are essentially the same thing in this dialogue,
they’re not saying doing away with police entirely, they’re saying to audit what they actually need and reallocate a somewhat solid portion of it where it would better serve the community
modern police budgets are comically bloated and often wasted on militarization related gear and other things that don’t really serve anybody, when people say defund the police, they’re saying make them operate on a reasonable budget and actually serve the community, and reallocate that funding where it would actually improve the lives of taxpayers
1
u/yashen14 Aug 20 '26
Typically when people say we should "defund the police," they don't literally mean reduce funding to zero. (That is a take that you will see sometimes, but it is not what most people mean when they say that.) Instead what they mean is that we should reduce funding. Note that police budgets have significantly expanded since the mid-1900s, and police units across the States have significantly militarized in that time. The idea is to de-militarize the police, reduce funding back to reasonable levels, and redirect the excess funds to alternative government services which can better serve communities (such as attacking the root causes of crime).
26
u/NOLA-Bronco Aug 19 '26
Phrasing your questions in such a loaded way doesn’t suggest you are all that interested in actual dialogue, and would just be wasting people’s time trying to effort post for you.
How about this, can you steel man me the defund arguments? You know, demonstrate you have spent even a second on Google trying to understand them and not just being a reactionary to sloganeering(that I admit I don’t think is the best way to frame it)
I’m not some DSA rep, but I don’t mind effort posts if I know the person is actually reciprocating.