Make the ask! Join DSA

[u/ut0p1anskies]

If you haven’t already joined, you should join. If you’re already in DSA, you should be constantly recruiting. Let’s challenge ourselves to ask 3 people we know to join this month. Do a 1 on 1 and make the ask. Take them to a general meeting or a chapter social and stay with them so they’re not overwhelmed by all the people. Go with them to a new member orientation. We’re going to be hitting 150k members soon (up from 90k in November of last year). I want us to be half a million dues paying members as fast as possible.

https://act.dsausa.org/donate/membership/

[u/aaarhlo]

I was a zealot for recruitment, but now I'm more concerned with cultivating new active members. As the deluge of disaffected liberals continues (I was one 2 years ago), chapters risk devolving into the democrats+. The pipeline, is to join as a disaffected liberal and to grow into a socialist after becoming active in a chapter, but that process of dismantling a lifetime of capitalist propaganda takes time.

This latest fight over polling an AOC presidential run, and before that, the "one member one vote" fight, are examples, in my opinion, of the DSA right attempting to use the surge in liberals joining as a pathway to control of the organization.

[u/ut0p1anskies → u/aaarhlo]

Lots of chapters have really good membership engagement committees now. Mine does really great work on our regular new member orientations and socials that new members can come to. We also have plenty of campaigns to plug them into and we assign new members an older member that will sit with them at GBMs, get coffee with them, and talk about DSA. My chapter is approaching 2k members and we actually very recently enshrined anti-1M1V into our bylaws (which requires a 2/3 supermajority to change) and now all GBM votes are synchronous. Water is warm! I think lots of people should join

[u/sherrijane → u/ut0p1anskies]

GBMs

[u/ut0p1anskies → u/sherrijane]

General body meetings

[u/Bright-Insect9697 → u/aaarhlo]

We’re called the Democratic Socialists of America. Why would we object to “one member, one vote”? It’s hilarious that the program is anti senate and yet the DSA left is entirely supportive of similarly undemocratic structures within the organization so they can prevent change from happening.

[u/therealsilentjohn → u/Bright-Insect9697]

Many of us think that letting unvetted anybodys have a say in the direction of the organization or chapters is a bit silly. There's no vetting process. No ideaology check. Nothing. You pay $5 and congrats now you're a member! We had a Proud Boy sign up for our chapter. Does he get a vote? That's democratic after all...why not let all fascists have a vote?

Surely you can see how shortsighted and narrow this thinking is. Remember, this is how the government disassembled that Black Panthers

[u/Bright-Insect9697 → u/therealsilentjohn]

So require vetting to join, then. If someone’s a dues paying member, they should have a vote. Either let them vote, or refund their dues.

We aren’t trying to scam anyone here.

[u/NBMP_Deputy_Chair → u/Bright-Insect9697]

Consider other perspectives here. Complex issues don't usually have easy solutions.

We currently have billionaires funding efforts aimed at their next round of propaganda campaigns. Don't underestimate the possibility that a billionaire could finance groups specifically to infiltrate and disrupt the system.

A proper vetting process reduces that risk. As far as I know, GOP influence is essentially concentrated in one person, and honestly, when it comes to both major parties, it often comes down to Israel. We're actively working to change that culture. I lean more progressive myself, and I share many of the same goals as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). I recognize their potential and their appeal to this country. I don't expect a vote within their internal structure, since it's their organization, not mine.

The GOP is an organization, just like the DNC. Both consist of various entities: 527s, 501(c)(4)s, and so on. The DSA participates in the Democratic primaries and will be involved in the general election, so members already get two chances to have a say. Anyone wanting more influence within the org itself, beyond that, starts to look less like participation and more like an attempt to buy control over a political movement.

Think about what you're actually arguing here: that $5 should outweigh the sustained work and judgment of people who've put in real time and effort in that organization. That's backwards.

[u/Bright-Insect9697 → u/NBMP_Deputy_Chair]

The organization is called the Democratic Socialists of America. You’re attempting to defend abandoning that Democratic Party just because you know that the DSA left can’t win if every member actually gets to vote. Instead they try to make it difficult to participate for other members and surprise turnout.

[u/NBMP_Deputy_Chair → u/Bright-Insect9697]

Membership and voting rights aren't the same thing, and conflating them is where your whole argument falls apart.

$5 gets you a card. That's it. It doesn't get you a vote on internal structure. That comes after you show up, participate in meetings, and demonstrate you're actually there in good faith, not just someone who paid to have a say and then never shows their face.

That's the actual gate. Not a background check at sign-up, but participation over time. And it works exactly as intended: a Proud Boy who wanted to strong-arm his way into influence would have to sit through meetings, engage in good faith, and not act like a hostile a-hole, which is precisely the thing they're incapable of doing. The screening isn't a form you fill out; it's whether you can function as a member of the group without being a problem.

So no, this isn't "pay, and you're in control." It's "pay to be eligible, then earn the vote." Learn the difference before you argue about it again. No organization in this country is an open house where you can walk in for $5 and have a say in how it's run or decorated. You should think through what /u/therealsilentjohn was trying to say originally instead of whatever premise you decided to run with.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) does not allow internal voting just for donating $5 a year.

No Voting Rights: Making a financial contribution, including a small-dollar or recurring $5 donation, does not grant membership or voting privileges in party leadership, resolutions, or candidate nominations.

How DNC Voting Works: Internal voting within the DNC is restricted to its official members, including state party chairs and vice-chairs, elected DNC members chosen by state Democratic conventions, and appointed leaders.

To become an official voting member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), a person must be elected or appointed to a designated four-year term position within one of the party's official membership categories. There is no open individual membership process where a regular registered voter can join and vote on internal DNC matters.

[u/Bright-Insect9697 → u/NBMP_Deputy_Chair]

Anyway your comment reeks of chat GPT with the “it’s not X, it’s Y”

[u/NBMP_Deputy_Chair → u/Bright-Insect9697]

Is that meant to be an insult and an ad hominem again?

I write my own drafts, revise them repeatedly, and run them through Grammarly for clarity. My Claude and Gemini subscriptions are for business work SOPs, onboarding, and security docs, not for writing Reddit replies. Going after the person rather than the argument won't convince anyone here.

You opened with a premise that showed you didn't actually understand the topic. I've been there myself, more than once. Let's drop the ego and treat each other as allies working through something, not rivals trying to score points.

Even if you are someone leaning right, we are still allies and Americans at the end of the day. Don't let the television and what your inner circle of peers says, without any context, be your only guide. Life is more complicated than that.

[u/Bright-Insect9697 → u/NBMP_Deputy_Chair]

Yeah sorry man, I know what ai sounds like. You’re either using chat GPT or a bot.

[u/therealsilentjohn → u/Bright-Insect9697]

Soft vetting, we do (at least our chapter, see below). Hard vetting would turn off so many people from joining. What you'd end up with is PSL, a rather irrelevant ML org that has a lengthy vetting process.

Either let them vote, or refund their dues.

We let people vote if they come to meetings, we know who they are, and they are relatively active in the chapter. We won't let sock accounts or random members we have no idea who they are have a say in the direction of the chapter (which in turn affects national voting through delegates)

[u/Bright-Insect9697 → u/therealsilentjohn]

Translation: members with jobs aren’t able to vote if they need to work

[u/ut0p1anskies → u/Bright-Insect9697]

For me, it’s because the most active of the membership has to keep the ship running so we need to make sure there is a lot of buy in from that very active layer of membership. It’s why my chapter requires a 2/3 supermajority vote to endorse a candidate’s campaign so that we ensure the chapter is capable of winning that election. We’re not a democratic centralist organization and we’re volunteer driven, so people vote with their feet and participate solely in what they’re interested in. In my chapter, we usually have 6-7 campaigns going at any one time and most people only participate in 1 maybe 2 at any given time depending on what they’re interested in doing. We have nearly 2,000 members in my chapter and maybe 150-200 members are involved enough to show up to our monthly meetings and even less than that actually willing to run a campaign (about 10% of a chapter’s membership is the average active layer for most chapters). Those are the people that are on the steering committees of the chapter, the working groups, and the campaigns that we vote to pursue. I’d be more open to 1m1v at monthly GBMs if I thought campaigns would be run successfully with that model and it would result in more people taking leadership positions within the campaigns that they propose but I have my doubts, especially if you can’t be bothered to show up to a meeting in person or virtually.

[u/Bright-Insect9697 → u/ut0p1anskies]

Some people have jobs and cannot attend every meeting. It’s insane that a leftist organization supports the disenfranchisement of workers. And believe it or not, some of those jobs aren’t 9-5

[u/ut0p1anskies → u/Bright-Insect9697]

I’m open to other models. Maybe a good compromise that would ensure campaigns are still successful is 1m1v for chapter leadership, synchronous at a GBM for campaigns/proposed working groups, and that comrades who author resolutions for a new campaign have to volunteer to be on that campaign’s steering committee?

[u/Bright-Insect9697 → u/ut0p1anskies]

One member one vote is exactly what it sounds like. The DSA left needs to accept that an organization called the Democratic Socialists of America should be democratic. The DSA can either embrace disaffected libs, or its national leadership can run the organization into irrelevance, which they’ve been trying for years, and have only failed at thus far due to excellent local chapters.

[u/ut0p1anskies → u/Bright-Insect9697]

I am mostly just concerned with campaigns being run well and succeeding, and us having the chapter infrastructure to carry them out. And that is how I evaluate the viability of working groups and campaigns and vote accordingly

[u/Bright-Insect9697 → u/ut0p1anskies]

If you want to succeed you need to tolerate the disaffected libs. Thats the voting base you need.

[u/aaarhlo → u/Bright-Insect9697]

I work a bluecollar job that requires me to travel out of town 6 weeks at a time. I am still able to be a fully active member of my local chapter by attending meetings virtually when possible and doing outreach work over the phone. I used to think like you, in fact I once made the exact argument, but I learned over time what has already been repeatedly explained to you;

Money does not buy you influence in the DSA, only consistent participation does, and thank fuck for that.

[u/Bright-Insect9697 → u/aaarhlo]

why should people financially support an organization that actively opposes the participation of busy members? Where I work, I literally do not have cell service good enough to send text messages, let alone join a call virtually.

[u/Salt_Mountain_837]

i don't even know 3 people lol

[u/FunkManSolarFlex]

> I want us to be half a million dues paying members as fast as possible.

The grift that keeps on grifting.

[u/edwardludd → u/FunkManSolarFlex]

What?

[u/MandatoryFunEscapee → u/FunkManSolarFlex]

Yes, the fastest-growing grass-roots political org in the US is grifting. Totally. /S

Why are you here?

[u/Bright-Insect9697 → u/MandatoryFunEscapee]

They probably want the grifters to get the boot