So, the Humanist report jumped in on the whole third way vs DSA thing, and I kind of want to refine my opinion somewhat on this matter.
First of all, once again, I'm not a democratic socialist, I am kind of adjacent to them, but come from a slightly more conservative, capitalist camp intended to mostly preserve existing institutions, while solving most problems with the status quo. I do believe that the DSA could represent a long term threat to the country if left unchecked. While our goals are aligned in the short term, when it comes to implementing literal socialism and the more extreme parts of their agenda, I am mostly against them. If we want a form of social democracy that ensures peoples' basic needs and empowers them to resist the demands of capital, that's fine, but I don't want to nationalize industries or have economic or political reform on the level their current platform proposes. I've discussed my differences previously, and one can read my blog if they want more nuanced takes on their opinions.
With that said, yes, the center is punching left and fear mongering to preserve THEIR power. Again, the debate seems to mostly be between third way politics and democratic socialism. One of these factions is to my RIGHT and is FAR too moderate, and the other is to my LEFT, and is far too radical. I want something in between the two. I think we need the largest economic restructuring since the original new deal, but that doesnt mean I want a socialist economy, but rather, a social democratic/social libertarian one. I align with the DSA on short term priorities, while disagreeing with them on long term version. We should be wary of recreating the MAGA problem on the left to some degree. This doesnt mean we shouldnt have a tea party moment. We absolutely need a kick in the butt to get going, but we shouldnt let the movement get taken over by actual bona fide radicals either. Again, I see tea party and MAGA as two separate waves of conservative populism. The tea party was about getting back to conservatism's roots, while MAGA was an authoritarian version that was hijacked by the "alt right." We need a movement to get back to progressive liberalism's roots, but that doesnt mean we need an illiberal force to hijack the movement either. Once again, my vision is more "second new deal" and less "workers own the means of production." It's more "blue tea party" than "blue MAGA."
And that's the frustrating thing about this. One side wants literal socialism, and the other wants the crappy status quo. And people like me are being forced to navigate between these competing pressures, advocating for serious change, while also trying to keep the genuine crazies out of the overton window. We shouldnt blindly support DSA, even if we strategically align with them on mutual short term goals. At the same time, we shouldnt back up the democratic establishment either. Their refusal to act is what led to this problem in the first place.
At the end of the day, I want to remind people that despite calling himself a socialist, bernie's ideology and legislative priorities was still fundamentally liberal. Yang was a human centered capitalist, aligned with MY ideology, and was always dunked on by DSA types. Those ideas are the sweet spot. We dont need crazies calling for one branch of government to rule them all, or stupid crap like dismantling our entire military or abolishing borders or prisons. Or having the government run most industries. But we also deserve better than the weaponized incompetence of the mainstream democratic party. Again, the gulf between DSA and the "New Democrats" is about as large, if not larger, than the gap between republicans and democrats. Like DSA is basically a lighter form of socialism. I admit, it aint as bad as like, full blown tankies, but as the centrist wing will point out, some members are flirting with tankieism. Its kind of a slippery slope past a certain point.
Still...again, we can't afford to "do nothing" and settle for incremental watered down compromises either. We need a bold vision for change. We just gotta be careful about what that is and what the level of change we implement is. So yeah. I know, I know, beating a dead horse, but I really did want to clarify a bit since seeing another take got me talking about this again.
No comments:
Post a Comment