SECTARIANISM TODAY, SECTARIANISM TOMORROW, SECTARIANISM FOREVER.

Les Leopold asks, "Can DSA’s Brand of Socialism Attract the Broader Working Class?"

No, for reasons that are not too removed from my assessment of a few weeks ago.

When DSA candidates take to the field, they focus almost entirely on populist economic demands—housing and food affordability, fair taxes on billionaires, and Medicare for All. These are socialist in the sense that Social Security, libraries, fire departments, and our current Medicare are socialist, and yet they are also firmly embedded in our capitalist system.

I have yet to encounter a DSA candidate who discusses truly socialist reforms, like the elimination of large private enterprises and workers’ control of the corporations that employ them.

A strict understanding of things socialist suggests that anything "embedded in our capitalist system" involves acceptance of the wages system, and there is no requirement that libraries, fire departments, or pensions, let alone things like roads and water mains, must be government services (the old "mixed economy" compromise.  It is also no accident, dear reader, that Mr Leopold, good communist that he is, will be dismayed that Marxism-DeLeonism is a foreign concept to the priviligentsia who align with "democratic socialism."

He continues with a rhetorical question.  "Then why does DSA use the word 'socialist' if it does not involve their day-to-day political debates? And why use it when it is sure to turn off many of the very working people DSA claims to represent?"

Perhaps because "socialist," like "hegemonic," or "infidel," is a worship-word.

[Socialism] doesn’t turn off DSA college-educated members. The reality is that despite their “Workers Deserve More” platform, DSA is a political organization by and for college graduates, especially disenchanted Democrats in blue areas. That demographic seems to have no problem with the idea of socialism. In fact, 66 percent of Democrats had a favorable opinion of socialism, with just 32 percent feeling negatively.

Which fits with several of the policies DSA supports that also are likely to turn off non-college working-class voters.

Sectarianism is as sectarianism does.

[W]e have the word “socialism” and significant portions of the DSA platform that do not have significant working-class support, yet DSA doesn’t seem bothered by being out of touch with large segments of the working class they claim to be fighting for.

That’s socialist identity politics. It lets the world know that DSA members, mostly college educated, have a vision to eliminate capitalism and the many problems it poses. While DSA would like to have broad working-class support, it is not about to give up its socialist vision and its more radical policies to get it.

And it’s doubtful to change because DSA is on a roll as it gains more and more members and support among disenchanted college graduates who they see as the new working class, or at least a large part of it. Afterall, DSA already is the largest, most active political organization in the country.

So, DSA and its members do not feel any pressure to change their political identity. They wear it proudly as the oligarchy limits opportunities for recent college graduates and drives them towards DSA.

That’s why it is highly unlikely that DSA will become a political organization of workers without college degrees. And that’s exactly why those unrepresented workers need a party of their own that reflects what they believe in and what they want from our economy and political system.

That "more" includes "working people can support a path to citizenship for immigrants already here while also wanting secure borders and limits on future immigration" and "there is a huge difference between reforming policing and abolishing it," which is to say, elements of policy bundles mainstream Republicans or Democrats might be comfortable offering.