My only comment would be to say the DSA most certainly has a Party--the Democrat Party. The WSWS has commented extensively on the DSA, for years, almost entirely negative, and the negativity is warranted. (They do see the younger generation's shift leftward as a good sign.)The DSA exists chiefly to corral wayward (young, mostly) left-leaning citizens into the dead-end that is the Democratic Party. There is an excellent article today there, where Joseph Kishore analyzes the NYTimes interview of Bhaskar Sunkara, by Ross Douthat. If you want to understand the thinking (or lack thereof) that animates the DSA's drive to win public office, look no further.
Excellent essay (as usual) and I have had similar thoughts about excesses of individualism in a so-called socialist party. I also wonder why 'democratic' + 'socialist' because in absolute terms, socialism is the most democratic of existing political forms, regardless of constant disinformation from the anti-democratic status quo.
I do wonder about one sentence, "Marxism or Leninism or, indeed, both—meaning reckless, uselessly destructive, unthought-through." Does Mr Lawrence mean that Marxists are reckless or Leninist destructive? And Marxist-Leninism is not thought through? Karl Marx was never an activist and did nothing but think, analyze, write, and publish. His large body of work over a lifetime, mostly a critique of capitalism, is now or has been read all over the world and inspires a multitude. Lenin was an activist and led the Russian people in the Bolshevik Revolution that turned the world upside down. The Soviet Union which he formed was a light unto the world and a harbinger of liberation movements all over the world. Neither of these men were reckless or destructive, and they were both detailed and careful thinkers.
Counterpunch published a small article by Kirkpatrick Sale on how Michael Harrington was spinning in his grave over the DSA. It reminded me of an old man shaking his cane and yelling at kids playing ball in his backyard. Harrington was a compelling speaker and he could beat Buckley in a debate. But he said that the Democratic Party was the Archimedean point of our society. He thought we could take them over. He supported the Vietnam war. He was committed to the state of Israel. He was there when the Party betrayed McGovern and then Jackson. He was not around when it betrayed Sanders. Did he ever see where it could go wrong? Thanks Patrick. You have done it again!
My only comment would be to say the DSA most certainly has a Party--the Democrat Party. The WSWS has commented extensively on the DSA, for years, almost entirely negative, and the negativity is warranted. (They do see the younger generation's shift leftward as a good sign.)The DSA exists chiefly to corral wayward (young, mostly) left-leaning citizens into the dead-end that is the Democratic Party. There is an excellent article today there, where Joseph Kishore analyzes the NYTimes interview of Bhaskar Sunkara, by Ross Douthat. If you want to understand the thinking (or lack thereof) that animates the DSA's drive to win public office, look no further.
Excellent essay (as usual) and I have had similar thoughts about excesses of individualism in a so-called socialist party. I also wonder why 'democratic' + 'socialist' because in absolute terms, socialism is the most democratic of existing political forms, regardless of constant disinformation from the anti-democratic status quo.
I do wonder about one sentence, "Marxism or Leninism or, indeed, both—meaning reckless, uselessly destructive, unthought-through." Does Mr Lawrence mean that Marxists are reckless or Leninist destructive? And Marxist-Leninism is not thought through? Karl Marx was never an activist and did nothing but think, analyze, write, and publish. His large body of work over a lifetime, mostly a critique of capitalism, is now or has been read all over the world and inspires a multitude. Lenin was an activist and led the Russian people in the Bolshevik Revolution that turned the world upside down. The Soviet Union which he formed was a light unto the world and a harbinger of liberation movements all over the world. Neither of these men were reckless or destructive, and they were both detailed and careful thinkers.
Counterpunch published a small article by Kirkpatrick Sale on how Michael Harrington was spinning in his grave over the DSA. It reminded me of an old man shaking his cane and yelling at kids playing ball in his backyard. Harrington was a compelling speaker and he could beat Buckley in a debate. But he said that the Democratic Party was the Archimedean point of our society. He thought we could take them over. He supported the Vietnam war. He was committed to the state of Israel. He was there when the Party betrayed McGovern and then Jackson. He was not around when it betrayed Sanders. Did he ever see where it could go wrong? Thanks Patrick. You have done it again!
Controlled opposition to the max. They're willfully blind.