I think your conception of the divisions within the left is too conditioned by the DSA Jacobin perspective. Zizek: “the ideological divide consists in how the ideological divide is itself conceived of.” I don’t think that the actual hard left is relevant at all: in the US context, the DSA IS the hard left for all intents and purposes. I would divide the left into four groups:
1. The neoliberal centrists (the kind who thought bringing Cheney on board was a good idea): they invoke social issues but tread very lightly on class and economics if at all
2. The “progressive” centrists: they invoke class and economics (very carefully to avoid upsetting capital)
3. The social democrats - this includes DSA and Jacobins but I think represents a wider swath of the electorate who is sympathetic to class issues but may not identify specifically with how those groups articulate them
4. The identitarians: care more about social issues than class issues, or place them on even ground.
Basically 1 and 2 are establishment forces and 3 and 4 are popular forces. 1 tries to bring 4 on board with Democrats and 2 tries to bring 3 on board. Basically both popular fronts are consistently outmaneuvered because class and identity are pitted against each other in a compromise that leaves no one happy, including the centrists.
I think what needs to happen is that 3 and 4 need to band together and come to the negotiating table with 1 and 2. It is basically like a union versus boss situation. They have to be unified in order to extract any meaningful concessions from the managerial elements of the left. They don’t know it but the center left would benefit from this too by generating more mass appeal. It also means too though that the more extreme elements of 3 and 4 may have to be played down a bit. The centrist critics have a few valid points about the left’s overemphasis on open borders and defunding the police, for example.
Effectively Democratic failure can be attributed to a poor compromise between these groups. The worst of all worlds instead of what is best in them.
Most in the hard left support and utilize democratic structures. Admittedly, as an anarchist, I have zero faith in democratic centralism being all that democratic and haven’t seen it play out in practice the way it does in theory.
That said, democratic norms do not belong exclusively to any left tendency and the DSA does need some structural reforms in order to be democratic. Its NPC is too similar to the once indirect election of US Senators, for example.
Hopefully the DSA finds a way to heal a little. Right now it’s a war zone (at least online - less so in person) due to the influence of the Democratic Party.
How do you think we should relate to groups on the hard left presently? Is there a way to build healthy relationships in coalition with them while maintaining our own orientation towards a democratic road to socialism? Is there even a strategic impetus to do so, or should we focus entirely on building the left flank of unions without worrying what groups like PYM say about DSA online?
I think your conception of the divisions within the left is too conditioned by the DSA Jacobin perspective. Zizek: “the ideological divide consists in how the ideological divide is itself conceived of.” I don’t think that the actual hard left is relevant at all: in the US context, the DSA IS the hard left for all intents and purposes. I would divide the left into four groups:
1. The neoliberal centrists (the kind who thought bringing Cheney on board was a good idea): they invoke social issues but tread very lightly on class and economics if at all
2. The “progressive” centrists: they invoke class and economics (very carefully to avoid upsetting capital)
3. The social democrats - this includes DSA and Jacobins but I think represents a wider swath of the electorate who is sympathetic to class issues but may not identify specifically with how those groups articulate them
4. The identitarians: care more about social issues than class issues, or place them on even ground.
Basically 1 and 2 are establishment forces and 3 and 4 are popular forces. 1 tries to bring 4 on board with Democrats and 2 tries to bring 3 on board. Basically both popular fronts are consistently outmaneuvered because class and identity are pitted against each other in a compromise that leaves no one happy, including the centrists.
I think what needs to happen is that 3 and 4 need to band together and come to the negotiating table with 1 and 2. It is basically like a union versus boss situation. They have to be unified in order to extract any meaningful concessions from the managerial elements of the left. They don’t know it but the center left would benefit from this too by generating more mass appeal. It also means too though that the more extreme elements of 3 and 4 may have to be played down a bit. The centrist critics have a few valid points about the left’s overemphasis on open borders and defunding the police, for example.
Effectively Democratic failure can be attributed to a poor compromise between these groups. The worst of all worlds instead of what is best in them.
Most in the hard left support and utilize democratic structures. Admittedly, as an anarchist, I have zero faith in democratic centralism being all that democratic and haven’t seen it play out in practice the way it does in theory.
That said, democratic norms do not belong exclusively to any left tendency and the DSA does need some structural reforms in order to be democratic. Its NPC is too similar to the once indirect election of US Senators, for example.
Hopefully the DSA finds a way to heal a little. Right now it’s a war zone (at least online - less so in person) due to the influence of the Democratic Party.
Even the "hard left" splits into anarchist and marxist camps as well. And camps within those camps. Confusing to navigate for any newbie.
How do you think we should relate to groups on the hard left presently? Is there a way to build healthy relationships in coalition with them while maintaining our own orientation towards a democratic road to socialism? Is there even a strategic impetus to do so, or should we focus entirely on building the left flank of unions without worrying what groups like PYM say about DSA online?