I’m not making assumptions, I’m speaking from personal experience of attempting to participate in leftist organization and seeing repeatedly how quickly it gets derailed whenever a specific group tries to make everything exclusively about their own pet issues, and shaming and accusing anyone who wants to focus on broader goals.

I read your medium article, it sounds like the author left the ivory tower of academia and was disillusioned to learn the realities of political praxis are much messier than theory. And it sounds like they don’t know what they want, anyway. Here’s a few examples:

While I was working with the other members that were occupied with this project, I- like several other Black members that entered and exited the chapter before me- noticed that there was very little active effort invested into organizing south of the 10 freeway. For context to non-Angelenos, south of the 10 and east of La Cienega are historically portions of the city that Black people have lived in and been displaced from. The working group had few canvassing efforts centralized there. They reasonably identified the problem that they would be perceived as gentrifiers if our first activity in the area was to ask for votes for a favored presidential candidate. Simultaneously, a new caucus called Afrosoc that centered Black Leftism in the DSA was started. It just so happened that the caucus was cobbled together to compose the few Black members that were encountered in recent meetings throughout the DSA, and was made to be responsive to internal critiques from Black members. The first project for the group- and the idea that pulled in new members to the caucus in the first place was to establish a branch in this region of the DSA-LA chapter’s territory.

So the non-black members correctly identified that they would be seen as gentrifiers if they attempted too much activity in the predominantly black neighborhood?

But then the black members get their own caucus where they can organize and take a leadership role among the local black community.

Oh, but then they complain that the black caucus is composed exclusively of the black members?

If they’re so concerned that there aren’t more black members, then that’s on more black people to participate. Non-black DSA members can’t go around forcing black people to contribute their time and effort volunteering. That would be so wrong.

And yet they still complain:

She was also attending this meeting led by what were, at a glance, yuppies and gentrifiers. I was aware of the lack of diversity, but I hadn’t stopped to fully consider the depth of contradictions until she said something

So now all of the sudden, when non-black members are participating, they’re just yuppies and gentrifiers? Even though, before, the concern was that they weren’t doing enough because it would have been seen as gentrification?

There’s definitely a contradiction here, but I don’t think it’s that “white people are participating in leftist spaces.”

And then they go and complain about black people having the leadership role in the black caucus:

The founders of Afrosoc were stuck in the stressful position of being “the Arbiters for all Black folks”, and kept insisting that the moment belonged to BLM. They stressed that the DSA needed to play a supporting role, not try to swoop in and advertise for itself.

What the hell else did they expect? Did they want the non-black members to be the “arbiters for black folks”?

And sure, the BLM movement in 2020 belonged to BLM. But they simultaneously complain that DSA should mind its own business, but also play a more active role in it?

It’s these sorts of self-contradictory demands that burn people out and desensitize them to the “racism” sledgehammer.

It’s also telling that she calls out the “Latinx” members, gives a one-sided account of what makes them they’re anti-black, and even calls them a “faction.” When a lot of it sounds like these Afrosoc members were sharing up to the larger chapter meetings and making demands to steer it in their own directions, instead of using their own caucus which they have to pursue their own goals and priorities, which is what a caucus is for. But no, they complain that rheir caucus is given the responsibility for their own priorities, and instead of using it to organize they try to demand the larger chapter do that work? Even though if the larger chapter were to do that work, they would still call them out on it?!?

And then they call it racism and anti-black when the chapter pushes back and tries to focus on the larger goals?

It seems they just wanted to derail and insert their own pet projects, not contribute to the established goals of the org they joined.

Oh, and let’s not forget about this gem:

Namely, it struck her as odd that so many of the members had the money to simply go to a bar in the core LA after the meeting- right after using so much rhetoric about the working class.

So apparently anyone who can afford to drink at a bar isn’t working class and can’t advocate for socialist goals? The person who said this had no comprehension of what the bourgeoisie is and how it differs from the proletariat.

There is absolutely no contraction between volunteering for a socialist org and going out for occasional drinks.

That article comes off as more of a hit-piece aimed at the only leftist org in the US that has any real political capital.

And sure, WEB DuBois is great, but an abolition-era writer isn’t the most accurately descriptive choice for 2026. Time isn’t static, you know. Things have changed since the 19th century.