A strong sense I get from these internal DSA debates is that much of the DSA Left is fundamentally averse to *persuasion*. I think this is multiply motivated: they do not enjoy it; they are not very good at it; and their model of the radical is not someone who can *be* persuaded
This is why you see majoritarian democracy generally viewed with suspicion, and specific exhortations against vote-whipping, one-on-one organizing conversations, canvassing, phonebanking, outreach lists, etc—the methods and tools of persuasion.
I think they resent the DSA Right for being so interested in persuasive work because it forces them to compete—and they dislike what persuasion requires—and because they fundamentally distrust persuasion. It’s not sufficiently authentic; the correct revolutionary is self-created. They come to the works of the revered elders, discover the truth within, and arrive to the vanguard ready to take their place within the formation. They don’t need to be persuaded.
Instead, having arrived and accepted their role in a more hierarchical formation, they are “educated”—a fundamentally different task from persuasion. A teacher does not *persuade* a student. A teacher has authority, and the student accepts their lessons.
Education is hierarchical. Obedience is a feature of education. Persuasion is peer based; argument is a feature of persuasion. In a persuasive conversation, both parties may object to the other. In education, the pupil who objects is incorrect, and is penalized.
That someone *needs to be persuaded* makes them untrustworthy to much of the DSA Left. Why does such a person, with their incorrect line (if they need to be persuaded, it must be incorrect!) have the audacity to object? Why do they not accept their correction and show proper deference to “the community”? What is this arrogance, that they demand to be convinced?
This is not someone who models the correct norms. Politics is a settled question; the answers all already exist. It is your job to learn them, not contest them. You are to show deference to “the community” (and, of course, its self-appointed arbiters). You should study the approved texts. You should recite the approved lines. “Everyone already knows” what the truth is; you merely need to receive it obediently.
Of course there is no place for persuasion in this moral model of society. Persuasion is, in fact, an affront. If you think you deserve to be convinced, then you’re arrogant, and if you *can* be convinced, you’re unreliable and fatuous. If you would *try to persuade others*, then you are slippery and devious, whereas the truthful educator simply announces the correct lesson and the pupils either obey or do not.
English
