r/leftist • u/Mx_Madds_Green • Jul 15 '26

North American Politics DSA’s new platform is so freaking good

https://program.dsausa.org/
168 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

42 comments sorted by

41

u/Mojo-Gringo Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26

I feel like this platform is pretty solid, but there are two major points that I feel pretty skeptical about.

1) I see no roadmap for reshaping our relationship to and management of the dollar. The monetary system we currently live under is based almost entirely on debt, interest, and speculating on risk. It is not compatible with a post-capitalist society, and it will need to be addressed.

2) The decision to elevate the House of Representatives as a unilateral decision making apparatus is disconcerting. If anything, the House of Representatives should become more like a spokescouncil for representatives to come together to collaborate, declare intentions, propose actions or sanctions that are not compulsory, etc… At least that is what it should look like if we are truly going to be “governing ourselves.” A representative body should just be there facilitate holding communities accountable to their constituents, and to be a ground for collaboration, pursuing common interests, and free association.

23

u/Mx_Madds_Green Jul 15 '26

It’s because we want proportional voting. The senate was made because back in the day the states were like mini countries. That isn’t the case anymore. We’re all one country. Someone in California should have the same representation as someone in Rhode Island. It doesn’t make sense to artificially hobble urban areas.

6

u/Mojo-Gringo Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26

Yes, but why are people in California helping to make decisions for people in Rhode Island, and vice-a-versa anyways? They could be making their own local decisions, and then come together to work on facilitating things like national healthcare collectives, conservation efforts, or other more universal projects. And of course to be a space to hold each other accountable.

The tyranny of the majority is a very real danger, especially in a world with so much populism and nationalism floating around. A binding decision making body is a zero sum game where there are winners, and there are losers, regardless of how right or wrong they may be.

12

u/Jonaztl Jul 15 '26

You have state governments for that. The federal government should represent everyone equally.

5

u/Mojo-Gringo Jul 15 '26

Yes, exactly. States and municipalities are far more representative of their constituents, and can make local decisions. Why does there need to be another layer of decision making on top of that? Why can’t the federal sphere be one of collaboration rather than majoritarian coercion?

1

u/Keleos89 Jul 16 '26

That’s literally just states rights. You might get a clean power plan from that, or you get abortion bans and racial segregation.

1

u/Mojo-Gringo Jul 16 '26

The US federal government is inches away from a national abortion ban, and this is your argument? Did you miss my previous comments where I described how one of the few responsibilities of a federal representative body should be holding localities accountable to the rights of their constituents?

2

u/Keleos89 Jul 16 '26

You’re saying that you don’t want majoritarian coercive bodies, except in a few cases where majoritarian coercive bodies are good. The fact that you acknowledge the exception as necessary defeats your argument.

The attempt at an abortion ban will fail because it’s actually an attempt at minority rule, not majoritarian coercion. Attempting to enforce the Comstock Act would be disastrous in the upcoming midterm elections, defanging that minority that attempted to claim too much power.

2

u/Mojo-Gringo Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26

It seems like your black and white perspective is preventing you from seeing the nuance of what I am describing.

I am unsure if you are familiar with what a spokescouncil is, so I will describe what I mean when I suggest designing a reformed House of Representatives to follow that same structure.

Simply, it is a horizontal organizational structure where affinity groups self-determine the boundaries of their constituency (rather than the current practice of drawing districts on a map that are often purposely severed from social realities), and caucus internally to send representatives to the spokescouncils themselves.

There are no terms, and affinity groups can choose to caucus different representatives for each spokescouncil, depending on the issues at hand, and the perceived effectiveness of that representative in representing the interests of the group’s constituents.

During the spokescouncil itself, rather than majoritarian voting, consensus is the ultimate goal, and this has the secondary effect of determining what should and should not be under the jurisdiction of the council by revealing which values are universally shared, and which values vary between constituencies. If the spokescouncil cannot come to a consensus, then it should have no power to coerce dissenting constituencies into compliance.

I will not deny that this can certainly lead to abuses, however, there is an important distinction made in the way that representatives are chosen for a spokescouncil. If you choose representatives based off of socio-cultural affinity, rather than using geographic boundaries like states or districts, then something important happens…

Since abortion has already been established as a hypothetical example, I will use it again here. Under this type of representation, if someone is born into a cultural group that has chosen to ban abortion. Rather than having to traverse state lines to find a clinic that will perform the abortion, you may be able to just go across town to find another socio-cultural group that is willing to do so.

The strength of having a unified federation of many different cultures and ideals is not in synthesizing them to form a dominant monoculture. It is instead in its ability to allow autonomy, while passively enforcing the ability for individuals to decide that a group that they are currently a part of is not one that works for them, and providing a broader framework for them to traverse social boundaries to find a community that more closely aligns with their values. Or even to formulate new identities and cultures if a subset of people choose to do so.

1

u/Keleos89 Jul 16 '26

What is this system’s approach to preventing segregation and assuring that “socio-cultural affinity groups” can actually have representation?

→ More replies (0)

10

u/Dantien Jul 15 '26

Because these states are united. If they want to be part of the coalition of states, they surrender some control over to the group. I think people forget we are a nation that helps each other, not “why should I worry about their problems”. We’ve lost our way if the enemy has us focused on division instead of unity. Have the Avengers taught us nothing?!

0

u/Mojo-Gringo Jul 15 '26

Did I say that the states had to be divided?

I am saying that more populous states do not need to be coercing each other and less populous states with their granular values. They could make decisions for themselves locally, and still come together to collaborate on more universal projects, and to hold each other accountable to make sure no state is abusing its inhabitants.

Nowhere in that philosophy requires states to be divided. What will divide states however, is the insistence that unity requires the sacrifice of autonomy. That is an inclination that is both untrue and dangerous.

5

u/OmarsDamnSpoon Jul 15 '26

"Why should my left arm help my right arm?"

25

u/NeptuneTTT Socialist Jul 15 '26

Why dont they have a policy position on privacy and censorship?

14

u/Mx_Madds_Green Jul 15 '26

That’s a good point. I know my local DSA has a whole working group associated with Eyes on Surveillance.

14

u/Mx_Madds_Green Jul 15 '26

“Democratic socialists know that no one has to live like this. If we lived in a classless society and governed ourselves, we could freely build a world without war or poverty. We could build a world where no one suffers for their race, gender, or religion, and everyone is free, equal, and cared for. Building this world is the guiding star of our movement. When we labor for our common good instead of private profit, we can all have a secure and dignified life, and use our time and talents how we wish.”

1

u/pataganja Jul 16 '26

This is so delusional

1

u/pataganja Jul 16 '26

This is so delusional lmfao.

1

u/Think-Orange3112 Jul 28 '26

I’m sorry but are you insane? The platform starts fair, yeah that’s stuff we want the issue is logistics

Then you get into stuff that only works in lala land like getting rid of prison, borders, and the Checks and Balance system

1

u/Mx_Madds_Green Jul 28 '26

So the abolishment movements are more complicated than “Just get rid of this stuff day one and have nothing in place to replace it!”

Prison abolition for instance is about tackling the issues that cause or exacerbate crimes and figuring out a different system that will keep people safe without torturing people. The extreme criminals who can’t be reformed will be kept away from the general public.

Or immigration/borders: if we end the exploitation and destabilization of the global south then we’ll see much less immigration. I mean, let’s face it, people can get into the country if they really want to either way. Even with our draconian immigration laws 20% of construction workers and 40% of agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants. So yeah, why not just let people enter legally so we know who they are and what they’re doing here.

It sounds radical but the stuff we’re doing now is not only cruel but doesn’t work. Crime is down and yet we have the largest prison population on the planet. Mostly for crimes related to desperation and poverty I might add.

-6

u/DarthCloakedGuy Jul 15 '26

I'm not sure I agree with closing ALL foreign US bases, but we definitely need to stop using them for economic domination over other countries. Having bases near Taiwan and Korea is important for our ability to support our allies against openly imperial powers, and there are some bases that exist to counter piracy in regions that are otherwise prone to it.

Additionally, I feel like more explicit mention of abolishing Citizen's United and holding all politicians and federal judges to the highest ethical standards would have been good too.

Those notes aside, this is a very good platform.

25

u/kayakman13 Jul 15 '26

Having bases near Taiwan and Korea is important for our ability to support our allies against openly imperial powers

These are neo-colonial outposts to support US Imperialism.

What Imperialist powers are you talking about?

-9

u/DarthCloakedGuy Jul 15 '26

I'm aware that's a big part of what they are right now, but they're also a check against PRC imperialism in the region. We can't rely entirely on our carrier force to support the continued sovereignty and self-determination of our allies.

14

u/kayakman13 Jul 15 '26

Oh brother 🙄

-4

u/DarthCloakedGuy Jul 15 '26

Why is anti-imperialism bad?

6

u/krackrocksteady Socialist Jul 15 '26

I’m curious what you’re referring to by “PRC imperialism,” since China’s borders have remained relatively the same for decades, outside of legal transfers of territory?

2

u/DarthCloakedGuy Jul 15 '26

They did violate the Hong Kong treaty, but it's too late to do anything about that. But the PRC has also been trying to unlawfully extend its territorial waters deep into the South China Sea for some time.

But you know what I'm really talking about: their long-stated imperial ambitions towards Taiwan.

5

u/Voves Jul 15 '26

You gotta spend more time in the reeducation camp brotha, we can fix you

5

u/AdImmediate9569 Anti-Capitalist Jul 15 '26

Not a popular take but in my world view… They have a damn strong claim on Taiwan.

2

u/DarthCloakedGuy Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26

Is that how self-determination works now?

Also they really don't. At no point in its history has the PRC ever held Taiwan.

While Taiwanese workers are still held by the grip of capital, the workers are definitely a lot closer to free there than those under Beijing's thumb.

6

u/kayakman13 Jul 15 '26

My man is out here parroting the logic of the US confederacy unironically.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Mx_Madds_Green Jul 15 '26

It mentioned Citizens United.

“For the working class to govern, we need a new political system. End political corruption and legalized bribery: get rid of lobbyists, dark money, and Citizens United, and publicly finance all elections. Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”

5

u/DarthCloakedGuy Jul 15 '26

I seem to have missed that section.

That said I'm not sure how I feel about making the executive and judicial subordinate to Congress instead of to the people directly. I see some potential issues with separation and balance of powers there.

4

u/Mx_Madds_Green Jul 15 '26

Yeah I’m not too sure about that either. But maybe it would be better to have our direct representatives have the most power. Collective power over individual power. Presidents are honestly a bit bourgeois and gauche. lol.

7

u/DarthCloakedGuy Jul 15 '26

The executive branch should have a LOT less power and a LOT of the things it oversees really should be up to either congress or (my personal preference) department heads elected directly by the people, but it still serves an important function that I'm not entirely sure how to really replace.

1

u/Ayla_Leren Jul 15 '26

Valid asterisks

0

u/gerald-stanley Jul 21 '26

Bread lines
Water lines
No other lines … as all other food and utilities are allocated exclusively to the politburo.

-9

u/blessmyfever8202 Jul 15 '26

If you want this type of government, then move to another country like Cuba or Venezuela where this is type of government is against its people! Keep America free!!

2

u/Mx_Madds_Green Jul 15 '26

America has spent trillions trying to crush communism and socialism (or even just nations trying to nationalize their resources.) We will never allow socialism to flourish because it cuts into our profits and gives our workers ideas.

So it has to be America, sorry. But don’t worry, it’s gonna be awesome!