DSA over $1M+ in debt, membership numbers falling

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This comes up every so often, so here we go again:

Before the twin cataclysms of 1914 and 1917 shattered the international Socialist movement forever, 'Social Democrat' had a very specific definition: it meant Marxist. Most of the parties so named were founded before 1914, and were Marxist parties modeled on the SPD. After 1917 the term came to denote those Marxist parties and organisations that chose democracy over than revolution, though some German writers continued to use the old definition; Walter Benjamin did right up until the very end. It only lost its Marxist connotations during the Cold War, when SPD formally renounced Marxism in 1959. These Marxist connotations are why George Orwell coined - or at least popularised - the phrase 'Democratic Socialist' to describe himself and other socialists opposed to the Soviet Union, rather than use the existing term 'Social Democrat': that term had baggage that he did not wish to be associated with.

It also happens that before 1914 the term 'Labour Party' also had a very specific definition: it meant a political party founded with the explicit intention of representing the interests of 'Labour' within a parliamentary system, and usually one with organic links to the trade union movement in the country in question. Specifically, with organic links to the whole of the trade union movement in the country (or with ambitions in that direction), rather than merely those formally committed to some form of socialist politics. This did not mean that Labour Parties could not be Marxist parties as well: both the Norwegian Labour Party and Poale Zion were Marxist organisations, and there was a small Marxist element within the British Labour Party that was particularly influential in and around London.

If it seems strange that the DSA would use the label given some of the people involved in it, then that is because the organization long pre-dates November 2016 and the people who ran it - and it's predecessor the DSOC - were social democrats, especially in its relative glory years in the 1970s and 80s.

The 70s and 80s, of course, having been when the DSA produced a future House Majority Whip, in addition to other Congressional stalwarts like John Conyers and Ron Dellums. These were not marginal bomb-throwers in the party like the current Squad mostly is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This comes up every so often, so here we go again:

Before the twin cataclysms of 1914 and 1917 shattered the international Socialist movement forever, 'Social Democrat' had a very specific definition: it meant Marxist. Most of the parties so named were founded before 1914, and were Marxist parties modeled on the SPD. After 1917 the term came to denote those Marxist parties and organisations that chose democracy over than revolution, though some German writers continued to use the old definition; Walter Benjamin did right up until the very end. It only lost its Marxist connotations during the Cold War, when SPD formally renounced Marxism in 1959. These Marxist connotations are why George Orwell coined - or at least popularised - the phrase 'Democratic Socialist' to describe himself and other socialists opposed to the Soviet Union, rather than use the existing term 'Social Democrat': that term had baggage that he did not wish to be associated with.

It also happens that before 1914 the term 'Labour Party' also had a very specific definition: it meant a political party founded with the explicit intention of representing the interests of 'Labour' within a parliamentary system, and usually one with organic links to the trade union movement in the country in question. Specifically, with organic links to the whole of the trade union movement in the country (or with ambitions in that direction), rather than merely those formally committed to some form of socialist politics. This did not mean that Labour Parties could not be Marxist parties as well: both the Norwegian Labour Party and Poale Zion were Marxist organisations, and there was a small Marxist element within the British Labour Party that was particularly influential in and around London.

If it seems strange that the DSA would use the label given some of the people involved in it, then that is because the organization long pre-dates November 2016 and the people who ran it - and it's predecessor the DSOC - were social democrats, especially in its relative glory years in the 1970s and 80s.

The 70s and 80s, of course, having been when the DSA produced a future House Majority Whip, in addition to other Congressional stalwarts like John Conyers and Ron Dellums. These were not marginal bomb-throwers in the party like the current Squad mostly is.

I want to make sure to highlight this. The House of Representatives of the 103rd Congress, the one immediately before the 1994 Republican tsunami, had a DSA Majority Whip (Bonior), a DSA Chairman of the Oversight Committee (Conyers), and a DSA Chairman of the Armed Services (!) Committee (Dellums), in addition to a couple of other less-prominent DSA members in the Democratic caucus. You also had prominent and in some cases nationally respected state lawmakers like Babette Josephs in Pennsylvania and, a few cycles earlier, Julian Bond in Georgia and Harlan Baker in Maine.

Imagine, in this Congress, Minority Whip (or Caucus Chair, I guess) AOC, Oversight and Accountability Ranking Member Bush, and Armed Services Ranking Member Tlaib. You can't, even if they had eight terms of seniority apiece, and I think between the DSA's own lack of seriousness, the current leadership's post-post-Clintonite ideological sheepishness, and the political climate of the country as a whole, there's more than enough blame for that to go around from a left-wing standpoint.

[dead0man]

and Armed Services Ranking Member Tlaib.

that's not funny, even as an example of something that could never happen


<I'm only 3% serious>

[MarkD]

Gee, socialists cannot manage money very well. Who'd'a thunk it?