I really disagree with this piece criticizing the DSA efforts to win formal leadership in the Nevada Democratic Party, for several reasons: https://socialistcall.com/2021/04/24/dsa-democratic-party-nevada-takeover/

#1: our project right now is to reach as many people as possible who might be open to democratic socialism, and be in active contact with them. A lot of those people are in the formal orbit of the Democratic Party, like it or not. This is a way to be in touch with those people.

#2: the structural limitations and contradictions of participating in the Democratic Party structures are very real, but so are the limits of every institutional effort. Being a union leader presents contradictions. Being an elected official presents contradictions.

#2 (cont): What makes it worth it to be fully present in these contradictory positions of leadership is not (only) what can be done formally through the institution, but that the institutions give access to (and meaningful contact with) a mass base.

#3: we just don’t know! We are five years in to a once-in-generations explosion of interest in socialist politics, and we are in no place to close any doors on experimentation.

#3 (cont): Anything that falls within the broad orbit of spreading the ideas of democratic socialism should be encouraged and evaluated on real outcomes, not pre-determined ideological opposition.

but really, the thing I feel the most is #1. The project now is class formation. Our current job is growth. We will grow by being in shared projects with those just outside DSA. The most likely group is politically active working class "progressives." Lots of those in formal DP!

I wouldn't say "let's all go take over our local Democratic Party!"

I would say "let's all go find the most politically active working class groups in our area and do everything to fight alongside them"

some places that'll include the Dems, some places it won't