Why I Stepped Back From Pittsburgh DSA

Dear DSA,

My name is David Greve, and I am a two-term member of the Coordinating (formerly Steering) Committee of Pittsburgh DSA, and the former Chair of the Electoral Committee. I recently resigned my seat on the Coordinating Committee and have stepped back from the chapter entirely in large part due to the actions of chapter members associated with the Build caucus, one episode of which I detail below. I felt compelled to share this experience after reading Allie’s post about Build and recognizing many of the behaviors and dynamics Allie talked about. To put it simply, a clique in the chapter has formed, sometimes referred to as the “No Bullshit Caucus” or NBC, that includes prominent members of the chapter’s Build caucus, such as a member who premiered Build at the 2018 Rust Belt Conference. Self-described on-going members of the NBC have told me that one of its primary purposes is to disrupt organizing in the chapter with which the group disagrees.

Unhappy with SEIU’s association, a prominent Build organizer, who had hosted gatherings of NBC members, and a group of like-minded comrades came to the last meeting before the event with a series of motions designed to prevent any work on the project. Most of the crew had not attended prior meetings of the working group, which had included strong and influential critiques of SEIU’s destructive conduct in previous coalitions in the city, as well as discussions about how to organize in that context. Despite this, myself and others in favor of the effort were smeared by this group as being “a front group for SEIU” and told that it was not possible to pursue our own goals. They attempted to use their proposals to ensure that decisions about the project would be made in a committee where the opponents could exercise the most control or force the working group to dissolve. Several new members that had shown up to the meeting were left completely bewildered and somewhat discouraged by their conduct. And though the effort had been explicitly organized as a cross-committee collaboration, members of the group attempted to use Robert’s Rules objections to prevent subsequent efforts to codify that until we gave up.

It is my firm belief that this behavior is incompatible with a DSA as a multi-tendency organization that allows people with differing views to organize under the same banner. Debate and disagreement are healthy, but smearing other members and utilizing parliamentary procedure to shut down organizing create a toxic environment. For DSA to be a successful and growing organization, this kind of behavior cannot be allowed to continue.

Related posts:

I lately realized how difficult is it to run a welfare organization or an NGO when I had to be a part of this work. Edhi foundation is the world’s top ambulance service with a guinness world record…

Some fundamentals for peace.. “My Baseline” is published by Mitch Trale.

A personal favourite of mine is Butterfly: From Refugee to Olympian — My Story of Rescue, Hope and Triumph (£11.77 on Amazon). This is the story of, Yusra Mardini, a remarkable woman whose journey…