by liberal japonicus
Folks have been talking about this, so I thought I would toss in the NYT Daily on the DSA.
"This is the Voice of Moderation. I wouldn't go so far as to say we've actually SEIZED the radio station . . . "
"This is the Voice of Moderation. I wouldn't go so far as to say we've actually SEIZED the radio station . . . "
by liberal japonicus
Folks have been talking about this, so I thought I would toss in the NYT Daily on the DSA.
The more I learn about DSA the less impressed I am–especially with the NPC which might actually be Russia-influenced. I hate to go all conspiracy theory but where did their desire to leave NATO come from? Why blame Ukraine for the war? I can understand wanting to revamp our foreign policy away from supporting dictators who kill their own citizens on the excuse of stopping communism and I can understand wanting to stay out of quagmires, but a wholesale capitulation to Russia? Weird.
And one of the chairs is a Marxist which means idiot. Voluntary idiot. I’m not referring to innate intellectual abilities. I am referring to the self-lobotomy necessary to join that religion–and contemporary American Marxism functions very much in the same way as American fundamentalist Christianity.
wonkie, a cousin of mine with fairly impeccable lefty credentials defended Russia when they invaded Crimea on the basis that they needed that port! I think it was a reflex for some people on the left who’d been so used to arguing that the USSR was no worse than America just less hypocritical
i’ll give them one thing: the DSA crowd is very sure of themselves.
An friend recently asked on FB, “Why are they labeling themselves as democratic socialists? Most of them are really social democrats”.
Which I thought was, in most cases, accurate.
The DSA label is like tying an anchor to yourself before you try to go swimming. Most of the actual policies proposed by folks like Mamdani, AOC, etc., are popular. The word “socialism” is, rightly or wrongly, toxic.
The little exposure I’ve had to DSA proper does not spark joy.
I think it’s important to remember a few things in these sorts of discussions – covered in part in the podcast, but easy to forget in all of the juicy gossip stuff that brings in the podcast audience…
My bet would be that the rebrand grabs hold of the Progressive Party label that briefly had a national profile, and that they present themselves more as social democrats or something along Fabian lines, rather than as anything overtly revolutionary and marxist.
I’d love to see the Democratic blogs and influencers build an on-ramp for all the people who support social democracy but who are alarmed at the idea of revolutionary socialism. I think the cross-pollination would do both sides some good.
If the socialist revolution comes to the US, it will come because the oligarchs force the issue and trigger widespread desperation on the scale of the Great Depression, not because the marxists organize it.
I’d like to see the Democratic party invigorated by new people who are politically within the Overton Window of discussion for Democrats–remembering that Dems are the party of Social Security, Medicare, Bonneville Power, mass transit, government housing programs….
It is in the DSA party platform to make themselves a viable national third party. Judging by their attacks on Democrats, I think the strategy is to get former Ds and indies. They also seem to believe that saying, “Med4all!” to working class white males will get them to renounce Faux news and the Republican party for DSA.
I don’t think they can do this while having a Marxist influence. They have something like five Marxist caucuses! Different caucuses for the various versions of Marxism, I guess. Supposedly they are big tent but there’s a conflict now between NYC DSA (which as far as I can tell is just Democrats) and the NPC.
I think they will tear themselves apart in factions. I think that nous is right: It’s fad of the season to be associated with DSA. I think that will wear off with exposure to their nuttier ideas and lousy spokespeople. DSA isn’t all Mamdani and AOC.
In case you didn’t know (I kid), one of the words “NAZI” stood for was “Socialist.” I see people pointing this out as though it proves something. It’s kind of like how the Republicans were the party of abolition and the Democrats supported slavery, another factoid that people trot out to prove who the real racists are.
This is politics. Figure it out, politicians!
I realize that I am not the audience, but it is baffling that the name ‘Democratic Socialism’ is taken as an anchor. Yes, I know that we are talking about the median US voter, but constantly having to invoke freedom and liberty seems to end up giving you people who believe shit like this
https://www.newsweek.com/anti-government-militia-targets-weather-radars-2097670
So it seems to me that people need to learn the actual meanings of words before we do anything else. How does any first world country organize itself without some sort of oversight and organzation?
The most recent Klein pod with Anne Lowrey touches on a lot of this.
https://youtu.be/-oZd7wpZuAc?si=3S5nkqVg72BSVbqV
just after posting that comment, I’m reminded by Jamelle Bouie of the Know-nothing thread in US politics
https://youtu.be/7eoanXKDICU?si=Ly2zjvsHucdJRJlD
It has me wonder, has there been any other country where a political party been based on a similar boast of ignorance?
My sense is that, for the DSA folks, being “socialist” is more important than actually accomplishing anything in their proclaimed program. Otherwise, they would have recognized this reality and chosen a different label.
If you’re waiting for that, you’re in for a long and futile wait. (Ask this real conservative how I know. 😢) Linguistics will show you numerous cases of words changing meanings. Sometimes actually reversing meanings. Trying to reverse that puts you in a league with King Canute.**
** Historical pendantic trivia. Canute didn’t think he could command the tides. It was the sycophants around him that proclaimed that he was so awesome that he could. Having a better grip on reality that our Dear Leader, Canute hauled them off to the seashore to demonstrate reality.
“I know that we are talking about the median US voter, but”
Sadly, there is no “but”.
The median US voter doesn’t have a lot of insight into the history and meaning of words like “socialism”. The bog standard usage here is that it’s “when the government takes your stuff and gives it to somebody else”.
Which, of course, is anathema.
And that’s the median.
I’ve been poking around a bit to try to determine just how big and influential any of the DSA caucuses are, and how representative of the general membership they might be. I found this article by Paul Le Blanc helpful for that: https://internationalviewpoint.org/Learning-from-the-DSA-convention
I especially found his analysis helpful with regard to numbers and what they represent:
Le Blanc’s estimate of the “active” national membership would put it at les than a tenth the number of people who voted for AOC in each of her general election contests.
He splits the party into three wings: a moderate mass-democracy wing; a far-left wing; a marxist solidarity wing. In other places I have seen it described as two camps with the party split between the radical activists and the mass-democracy wings.
My gut instinct here would be to look at all of this and say that what we see is a national party split between a large, casual membership that votes DSA but does not take an active role, and a small activist core that does most of the grunt work of the party. My first instinct is to say that the active core is 2/3 radical and 1/3 mass-democracy, but that as you get outside of that 10,000 core membership, the number of radicals shrinks rapidly. And tactically, I’d say that the radicals aim mostly to plunder as many members from the young Democrats as they can and see the Dems as part of the opposition. The mass-democracy wing is aligned with AOC and Bernie, wanting to represent a leftward pull within the larger Democratic coalition. The marxist solidarity wing is trying to keep both of the other groups in dialogue and keep the DSA from fragmenting – allowing for strategic partnership with the Democrats while still hoping to supplant the Democrats in the long-term through peaceful organizing and education.
This sounds right to me, given what I have seen in my union work, with about the same sort of splits between represented freeriders, members, and active members and a similar split between activists and kitchen table members.
Activist power is substantially less than what is needed for “strike power” in a union. I think it’s the same for the DSA.
But as long as the larger organizations are working towards the bread-and-butter goals of the membership, they will tolerate activist outbursts, but the activists will march alone if they overstep, and lose credibility in the process.