a force that breaks with the Democrats on a class basis.
I recently saw an interview with Bashkar Sunkura where he said that "taking over the democratic party" and "establishing a new party" shouldn't be different strategies, they're only different outcomes.
I think he’s deliberately obfuscating that distinction, having heard him speak on it a few times. Changing the class nature of a centuries-old capitalist party, and going about the process of building an organized, independent political alternative, are two very different tasks. Bhaskar has generally favored working in (and inevitably with) the Dems, and, at least from what I’ve heard from him, his strategy for breaking with the Dems goes through the dem party.
And the prospects for success are not the same. Despite the electoral success of progressive Dems, the party on the whole is continuing to track to the right! For example, Biden’s “fig leaf” to the left on healthcare in 2020 was objectively worse than Clinton’s offer in 2016, and this is after a series of campaigns with socialized healthcare as the key issue. And the highest profile socialists in the dem party are bullied into being team players and supporting this state of affairs. It’s hard to make the case that the Democrats, and the capitalists they serve, are the enemy when you are hamstrung by literally governing in that party.
going about the process of building an organized, independent political alternative, are two very different tasks
I'm not denying that (and I don't think he is either). If you look at the historic successes of third parties and the recent succes of social-democratic candidates inside the democratic party, I don't understand how you can deny that participating in primaries in the democratic party is a succesfull strategy for the left. Participating in those doesn't mean you don't form your won political line, it does not mean you become subservient to the party. Some high profile individuals have done that in 2020, but DSA didn't.
his strategy for breaking with the Dems goes through the dem party.
Yes, that is correct. In a scenario like what's ahppening with Corbyn in the UK at the moment you could make such a break if you're willing to fight (unlike the British left is doing, regrettably). The fact that he's already making that intention clear now, shows prospect.
Changing the class nature of a centuries-old capitalist party
The democratic party has over 45 million members . Many of those people are working class, by defenition (the bourgeoisie isn't that big). The consciousness of the working class in the US simply isn't that great that you can just abandon this structure.
By the way, I would also like to make the extra point that what is called a "political party" is very dissimilar to political parties in the rest of the world, and I think this is a crucial point to make in this debate. A political party in the rest of the world is a private entity where individuals can join if they pay a fee, and in return they have a say in the political programme of the party. The "parties" in the US are of a completely different nature: you register with the governement to which one you belong, and in return you can participate in an electoral process. In that sense, they are much more similar to the first round of a two round electoral system (like in France for example) than to a party. They 're not 100% the exact same, but I believe this framing is helpfull to understand the role of primaries in the democrats.
If you understand parties in this sense, an organisation like DSA despite not being considered a "party" is is behaving like one, and the democratic party isn't.
Changing the class nature of a centuries-old capitalist party
You're reading this backwards. The parties are capitalist because the country is capitalist. It's a consequence of the prevailing economic system, not the force behind it.
Any new party will be just as vulnerable to the temptations created by public-private revolving doors, corporate money and manpower, and the ambitions of its less ethical members as the existing two. There will be nothing incorruptible about a New American Labor Party's leadership, should it ever gain enough traction to start winning seats. No more than the DSA or the Greens have been immune to temptation.
Despite the electoral success of progressive Dems, the party on the whole is continuing to track to the right!
The biggest right-shift of the party occurred in the Reagan Era, when the DLC began its take-over by running candidates and winning races in historically labor-friendly midwestern states. The FDR/LBJ wing of the party lost out to the Clinton wing in the same way the Liberal Republicans were ousted by the Tea Party.
Progressives are just now beginning to stake claims to the party leadership again, and this sub's response is "Bernie didn't win! Fuck it, let's do the Ralph Nader thing again!"
If there's one thing folks like Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, and Donald Trump have consistently demonstrated, it's the third parties are a losing game. At best, you still end up caucusing with a Big Two party. At worst, you get Nader-ized and you end up alienating your would-be base by the "spoiler" tag.
I recently saw an interview with Bashkar Sunkura where he said that "taking over the democratic party" and "establishing a new party" shouldn't be different strategies, they're only different outcomes.
I think he’s deliberately obfuscating that distinction, having heard him speak on it a few times. Changing the class nature of a centuries-old capitalist party, and going about the process of building an organized, independent political alternative, are two very different tasks. Bhaskar has generally favored working in (and inevitably with) the Dems, and, at least from what I’ve heard from him, his strategy for breaking with the Dems goes through the dem party.
And the prospects for success are not the same. Despite the electoral success of progressive Dems, the party on the whole is continuing to track to the right! For example, Biden’s “fig leaf” to the left on healthcare in 2020 was objectively worse than Clinton’s offer in 2016, and this is after a series of campaigns with socialized healthcare as the key issue. And the highest profile socialists in the dem party are bullied into being team players and supporting this state of affairs. It’s hard to make the case that the Democrats, and the capitalists they serve, are the enemy when you are hamstrung by literally governing in that party.
I'm not denying that (and I don't think he is either). If you look at the historic successes of third parties and the recent succes of social-democratic candidates inside the democratic party, I don't understand how you can deny that participating in primaries in the democratic party is a succesfull strategy for the left. Participating in those doesn't mean you don't form your won political line, it does not mean you become subservient to the party. Some high profile individuals have done that in 2020, but DSA didn't.
Yes, that is correct. In a scenario like what's ahppening with Corbyn in the UK at the moment you could make such a break if you're willing to fight (unlike the British left is doing, regrettably). The fact that he's already making that intention clear now, shows prospect.
The democratic party has over 45 million members . Many of those people are working class, by defenition (the bourgeoisie isn't that big). The consciousness of the working class in the US simply isn't that great that you can just abandon this structure.
By the way, I would also like to make the extra point that what is called a "political party" is very dissimilar to political parties in the rest of the world, and I think this is a crucial point to make in this debate. A political party in the rest of the world is a private entity where individuals can join if they pay a fee, and in return they have a say in the political programme of the party. The "parties" in the US are of a completely different nature: you register with the governement to which one you belong, and in return you can participate in an electoral process. In that sense, they are much more similar to the first round of a two round electoral system (like in France for example) than to a party. They 're not 100% the exact same, but I believe this framing is helpfull to understand the role of primaries in the democrats. If you understand parties in this sense, an organisation like DSA despite not being considered a "party" is is behaving like one, and the democratic party isn't.
You're reading this backwards. The parties are capitalist because the country is capitalist. It's a consequence of the prevailing economic system, not the force behind it.
Any new party will be just as vulnerable to the temptations created by public-private revolving doors, corporate money and manpower, and the ambitions of its less ethical members as the existing two. There will be nothing incorruptible about a New American Labor Party's leadership, should it ever gain enough traction to start winning seats. No more than the DSA or the Greens have been immune to temptation.
The biggest right-shift of the party occurred in the Reagan Era, when the DLC began its take-over by running candidates and winning races in historically labor-friendly midwestern states. The FDR/LBJ wing of the party lost out to the Clinton wing in the same way the Liberal Republicans were ousted by the Tea Party.
Progressives are just now beginning to stake claims to the party leadership again, and this sub's response is "Bernie didn't win! Fuck it, let's do the Ralph Nader thing again!"
If there's one thing folks like Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, and Donald Trump have consistently demonstrated, it's the third parties are a losing game. At best, you still end up caucusing with a Big Two party. At worst, you get Nader-ized and you end up alienating your would-be base by the "spoiler" tag.