When asked the “so what” question at the end, and pressed on “what ought we do”, Kevin replies: “It doesn’t matter about the correct position, it matters about ‘what actions does the organization [DSA] take and how does it organize its position when it takes a stand on one side or the other when a moment is presented to it, so I think the DSA acted correctly and nobly” Or in other words, what ought we do? I don’t know, but something! Sounds a lot like “the movement is everything…” I can agree what you do is far more important than what you say, but he is saying more than that. He’s suggesting their theory/position/stated-purpose is totally tangential to the organization. By what measure can you assess if an action was “correct” or “noble”? Does this not provide easy justification for cheering on every noble defeat, repeating the same mistakes, and ignoring failures by perceiving them as otherwise? Which moments should the DSA seize on? If the thought behind the action doesn’t matter, I know many Christian charity and volunteering organizations run far better than any leftist mutual aid orgs. “[The DSA] has more of a hope [of being a home for the Left] than anything else, and I don’t know what else to do.” Why is it valuable to create a home for people who consider themselves included when they hear abstractions such as “the Left”? What standard can the DSA hold any politician to if they don’t have a coherent program from which the politician could deviate? I’ll return to the beginning, what you do, not say, matters, or as you’re one to say “a thing is its function: what it does”. The DSA is a student org which gives time, press, and money to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The corpse of this “radical” farce isn’t a bountiful “whale-fall”, it’s just an unveiling of how erroneous and impotent they’ve always been.
I'm genuinely curious to know how Michael Brooks was an opportunist like you say about 40-ish minutes into the video, and how any betrayal from him wouldn't even be a personal failing
Michael Brooks wanted to be the first Democratic Socialist Senator from New York. I can see a million ways that would've created conflicting incentives.
The word "opportunist" is provocative but I don't think MB would take issue with it, in the sense that he openly advocated for a type Machiavellianism, that would benefit a broad base of people. Would he have "sold out" for National Universal Healthcare? Depending on what he was giving up, I think so and that's fine/good.
@@nells7687 Actually, no, in socialist circles, opportunism is not primarily about you personally benefiting, that is a separate use case that is only tangentially related to the way socialists historically used the terms and the way I did here. It absolutely isn't the way Marx used it when he accused the SPD of being opportunist in relationship to the BIsmarkian government by serving in the ministry. He didn't see them as self-serving (although in a few letters he does use that more common definition) It is about use trying to use opportunities to jump on situations prematurely or without the ability to benefit. That you only know one use of the word is on you, but makes your petulant responses make more sense. You are not just reactive, but ignorant enough to not even understand the way the phrases are being used and thus thinking I was accusing Michael of being self-serving (which I don't think at all) or insincere (which I have said many times I do not think), I was accusing him of building an impossible coalition that people in it would see him as betraying when he had to compromise to keep his seat or gain it, and that since there was not an organic mass base to back him up as it was not achieved by when Michael was trying to pivot to a political career. This is what I meant by opportunism. That said, you can still get bent given the rest of your comments.
Loved a lot about Matt Brooks, but his argument that The Far Left had to appeal to people I frankly would not want (they might drive us Right if they had sufficient influence/numbers) and his presence on Sam Sedar for most of his career seemed a bit sus to me.
When asked the “so what” question at the end, and pressed on “what ought we do”, Kevin replies:
“It doesn’t matter about the correct position, it matters about ‘what actions does the organization [DSA] take and how does it organize its position when it takes a stand on one side or the other when a moment is presented to it, so I think the DSA acted correctly and nobly”
Or in other words, what ought we do? I don’t know, but something!
Sounds a lot like “the movement is everything…” I can agree what you do is far more important than what you say, but he is saying more than that. He’s suggesting their theory/position/stated-purpose is totally tangential to the organization. By what measure can you assess if an action was “correct” or “noble”? Does this not provide easy justification for cheering on every noble defeat, repeating the same mistakes, and ignoring failures by perceiving them as otherwise?
Which moments should the DSA seize on? If the thought behind the action doesn’t matter, I know many Christian charity and volunteering organizations run far better than any leftist mutual aid orgs.
“[The DSA] has more of a hope [of being a home for the Left] than anything else, and I don’t know what else to do.”
Why is it valuable to create a home for people who consider themselves included when they hear abstractions such as “the Left”?
What standard can the DSA hold any politician to if they don’t have a coherent program from which the politician could deviate?
I’ll return to the beginning, what you do, not say, matters, or as you’re one to say “a thing is its function: what it does”. The DSA is a student org which gives time, press, and money to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The corpse of this “radical” farce isn’t a bountiful “whale-fall”, it’s just an unveiling of how erroneous and impotent they’ve always been.
A single whale fall can support a scavenger community for a good 30 years!
But who is our whale?
Good conversation. Thanks guys.
I'm genuinely curious to know how Michael Brooks was an opportunist like you say about 40-ish minutes into the video, and how any betrayal from him wouldn't even be a personal failing
Michael Brooks wanted to be the first Democratic Socialist Senator from New York. I can see a million ways that would've created conflicting incentives.
The word "opportunist" is provocative but I don't think MB would take issue with it, in the sense that he openly advocated for a type Machiavellianism, that would benefit a broad base of people. Would he have "sold out" for National Universal Healthcare? Depending on what he was giving up, I think so and that's fine/good.
@@nells7687 Actually, no, in socialist circles, opportunism is not primarily about you personally benefiting, that is a separate use case that is only tangentially related to the way socialists historically used the terms and the way I did here. It absolutely isn't the way Marx used it when he accused the SPD of being opportunist in relationship to the BIsmarkian government by serving in the ministry. He didn't see them as self-serving (although in a few letters he does use that more common definition) It is about use trying to use opportunities to jump on situations prematurely or without the ability to benefit. That you only know one use of the word is on you, but makes your petulant responses make more sense. You are not just reactive, but ignorant enough to not even understand the way the phrases are being used and thus thinking I was accusing Michael of being self-serving (which I don't think at all) or insincere (which I have said many times I do not think), I was accusing him of building an impossible coalition that people in it would see him as betraying when he had to compromise to keep his seat or gain it, and that since there was not an organic mass base to back him up as it was not achieved by when Michael was trying to pivot to a political career. This is what I meant by opportunism.
That said, you can still get bent given the rest of your comments.
@@nells7687 Also, did you know Michael or are you just a fanboy?
Loved a lot about Matt Brooks, but his argument that The Far Left had to appeal to people I frankly would not want (they might drive us Right if they had sufficient influence/numbers) and his presence on Sam Sedar for most of his career seemed a bit sus to me.
the fact that you can't type either of the names shows your ignorance. Listen to more varn before making these comments.
You mean Michael Brooks, friend?
Yeah I love Mel Brooks too