I think we all need to emphasize DSA's democratic processes in interviews, and our desire for increased democracy everywhere. DSA wants to expand democracy in the political sphere (our distant constitutional changes are part of that) and to the economic sphere. So while we are calling for an expanded house, with proportional representation, it's so we can have a multi-party democracy instead of what we have now. But obviously changing the constitution is a massive lift, to put it lightly.
Also, if you want to criticize Megan, I would suggest you do it in the forums, where she can respond, rather than on a popular NYC radio show.
I do wish we had divided the program into long-term goals and short term goals, but oh well. It would make it easier for candidates to pick out the ideas they want to emphasize.
Not a great analysis of the DSA movement beyond the walls of the ivory tower. Eric misses — pretty blatantly — the urgent need for DSA to actually be organizing against the carceral state and mass policing.
The DC chapter — the DSA's third largest — elected a socialist mayor, a councilmember and produced a broad left sweep of the local government just two months back. It is also one of the few chapters that has an organized and active "Abolish Police" working group — so large it often attracts members from other chapters who seek to build their own. The deep base-building and community outreach engaged by organizers who led with these ideas is what produced the conditions for a monumental shift in the city.
You actually do need to have an analysis for what you are going to do about the overburdening of public budgets (and common morality) with rogue and consistently expansive police states. It's really not enough to just say "we're not going to defund" and point fingers at the spooky "left" wing of the organization. If you are not thinking through these problems seriously, working-class voters — who have to actually deal with the problems produced by failed police models in this country — will never find you credible.
Ah yes, great to hear from the condescending pro-cop wing of the DSA. Love to be tut-tutted for believing in police abolition.
Blanc says, “Defund the Police is confusing because it makes it sound like you don’t think any money should go towards the police in the short term.”
Wow, that is quite the projection! He clearly has very little respect, not only for voters, but also anyone who believes in police abolition. Every time I hear someone criticize the slogan, it’s clear to me that it’s not the wording of the slogan or the lack of nuance, but it’s that they are personally pro-cop and they don’t *want* the slogan to gain any traction. Criticizing a popular slogan for not being nuanced enough is nothing but thinly-veiled opposition to the core idea.
Does he know that the pro-life movement has been advocating for abolishing abortion since Day 1, and that because they never hedged, never moderated their position, never tried to win anyone over but instead move full steam ahead toward their ultimate goal, they have come very close to achieving something they believe in very, very strongly? I envy them for making it this far despite never moderating.
Does he also know that Republicans have been calling for the dismantling of just about every institution BUT the police for decades now, and they’ve succeeded because they had strong conviction?
Everybody had time to read Project 2025 three times over and Republicans still won a trifecta, because this country actually loves bold, crazy, unthinkable ideas, no matter what the flavor. MAGA has defunded USAID, leaving millions to die, defunded the DoE, the Dept of Interior, they’ve enacted so much austerity that it’s a wonder why anyone would question the salience of ‘Defund the Police.’
So why can’t we be adults about abolishing the police? Why is it when Republicans call for the defunding of all manner of public programs, that it’s framed as a matter of fiscal conservatism, but when the left does it, we’re being naive and extreme and not nuanced enough? The reason these people hate the slogan is not because it’s politically wrong, but because it’s so simply and concisely anti-cop. That’s it. It’s not semantics, it’s a difference in politics.
Police abolition is a terrible policy, and he was doing his allied advocates a kindness in criticizing it purely in terms of optics. It was also considerate of the listeners, who already know it's a terrible idea and need to be told that the DSA has good things to offer.
Also, bad optics is centrist DSA pinheads pissing on police abolitionists thinking they don't need them. I would second guess that kinda PR if I were him. Not very "considerate" at all when it comes down to it.
Police abolitionists are an albatross around the neck of any mass movement, right next to people who want to eliminate public education. Parties that win with them do so in spite of these policies.
Interesting, the party who has been quite open about abolishing public education since the 60’s just recently won a trifecta in 2024, and they have made serious inroads to accomplishing that horrible goal, and it ain’t like they’ll be punished for it at the ballot box.
But it’s telling that you equivocate the police with public education, as if they are equally necessary institutions. Noted.
Friend, people may tell you such a thing in good faith without knowing that, per the Supreme Court, the police in the United States have no legal duty to serve or assist the general public. They have no legal duty to protect the average citizen from danger or death. They have no legal duty to prevent crime. They don’t even have a legal duty to investigate crimes; they exist to enforce the law.
The laws in this country are pure bananas, which is why they necessitate the threat of deadly force, and the police exist explicitly to offer that service. The law as we know it, English Common Law, exists at the behest of the wealthiest property owners and always has. It’s exists to serve their purposes, first and foremost. In every nation that has adopted English Common Law, this has historically been the case.
Many people may indeed answer in the affirmative that they believe an organized police force is necessary for any civilized society, but then, what good is “civilized” when the police departments all across the country are little more than militarized uniformed gangs who routinely operate outside the law?
Is qualified immunity civilized? No, it’s state-sanctioned murder.
Is civil forfeiture civilized? No, it’s a humiliation ritual that amounts to legalized pillaging.
Are no-knock warrants civilized? Not in any sense of the word.
Is the disproportionate harassing, ticketing, arresting and prosecuting of black and brown people, consistently, for decades, despite all reform efforts, really the mark of a civilized society?
None of this should ever occur in a civilized society but these law enforcement practices are not only routine, they have been in fact blessed by the Supreme Court, making the average police department practically reform-proof. This is why we say abolish.
Superb as always Eric. I am proud to stand with you in the “right wing” of DSA, although I hate putting it that way. Your concept of not opposing social democracy to socialism is right on the money. Winning social democracy is a step toward socialism and would be a helluva lot better than our budding fascism. DSA’s growth and electoral successes are approaching a wave. But we still have a ways to go to match the left’s success in the 1930s, especially with our influence in the trade union movement. In the 1930s both were growing. Now we are coming off a long decline. Let’s keep the momentum going.
pitiful interview in which you didnt concede ONCE that DSA wants/needs to go beyong Sweden. no matter how reformist, how gradualist, how rightist (in DSA) you are, you have to concede for the sake of party unity and principle, that you are a socialist committed to socialism. you need to explain this and when they clearly gave you the chance to do so, you rejected it! why? is the goal turning into today's SPD in 20 years or so? if that's the case, go ahead but be honest about it.
Rather than get trapped into debating problematic solutions, like defunding things, we should be making clear that we need to solve the institutional problems caused by the corruption of the two corporate controlled major political parties! Fighting corruption is what defunding is aiming at but we are letting that conversation be derailed by failing to control the narrative.
Eric's states, "democratic socialists are the only political current that has a solution to the crises that ordinary working people are facing — the affordability crisis, the crisis of political democracy, all of these things that are felt immediately. "
It's OK that I feel excluded by that statement. Boohoo you hurt my feelings.
There is the old problem of the schismophilic left. DSA remains at risk of this failing.
100% I said the same after I saw that terrible Fox News interview, I hope DSA national leaders are getting media training soon and some folks just shouldn’t be leading the organization, especially not at this historic conjunction
…along with the world- wide imperialism and genocides. Electing social democrats will get us nowhere. The 8 hour day was not won by social democrats getting into office. It was won by class struggle movements of workers in the streets. The fight for industrial unions was fought for and won through massive strikes and organized community support in the 30’s. FDR was forced to institute the New Deal because the threat of workers organizing to take state power became too scary for the ruling class. Instead of DSA quibbling over its program it should offer the working class clearly understood demands we can fight for instead of the current hubris of thinking you can do it for us.
Hope or magical thinking? Nowhere at any time has gradual improvement of a system resulted in collective power and sharing of society’s wealth. Only an abrupt breaking with the past and its institutions will result in socialism. Even the social democrats of 120 years ago were to the left of Blanc.
Thank you for your analysis and your comments on the radio station. One thing you might’ve said to correct the interviewer is that while many Dsa‘s in Michigan including one I have spoken to are active and supportive ofvAdbul’s campaign, as did I in a very small way, he himself called himself a capitalist, and I think what he met his is in favor of a free market system of some kind, not that he individually is a capitalist.
But the reality is of course that we have a mixed economy and that even in a full-blown democratic socialism, that would be a mixed economy.
As I like to preach, within each policy domain, the progressive pragmatic and democratic socialist position is to ascertain what is the best mix within that area of social policy of the public, market, nonprofit sectors, and what is the role of individual and family responsibility, in order to address human needs in a way that are consistent with human rights. The best mix may differ between areas of policy.
That’s basically a full employment policy for policy analysts! That is sort of a joke since I’ve taught social policy for over 20 years, although lately only social theory. But that’s the problem: We need better theory of Democratic socialism.
Perhaps that’s something that you can work on because your voice is widely respected. I’m taking a shot at it too and have well over 30,000 words written, with the title Are you a Democratic socialist? What kind of Democratic socialist are you?
Perhaps an edited book would be a good idea, but I would like it to be open access, somehow ideas welcome.
Democratic socialists wrap collectivism in the language of democracy, as though putting coercion to a vote makes it voluntary. The ballot box changes who wields the coercive power; it does not make that coercion legitimate.
Democratic socialism is simply another ideology that asks the state to override individual liberty, private property, and voluntary exchange in order to impose its collectivist vision upon peaceful individuals who never consented to it.
You are correct. DSA is for strong social liberties without economic exploitation (what you call “free” exchange). We absolutely want collective solutions, collective enterprises, etc, where democracy is the norm. Libertarians want to be petty dictators of whatever economic kingdom they control, pretending that contracts and “free exchange” make us equal, because “choice.”
I think we all need to emphasize DSA's democratic processes in interviews, and our desire for increased democracy everywhere. DSA wants to expand democracy in the political sphere (our distant constitutional changes are part of that) and to the economic sphere. So while we are calling for an expanded house, with proportional representation, it's so we can have a multi-party democracy instead of what we have now. But obviously changing the constitution is a massive lift, to put it lightly.
Also, if you want to criticize Megan, I would suggest you do it in the forums, where she can respond, rather than on a popular NYC radio show.
I do wish we had divided the program into long-term goals and short term goals, but oh well. It would make it easier for candidates to pick out the ideas they want to emphasize.
Not a great analysis of the DSA movement beyond the walls of the ivory tower. Eric misses — pretty blatantly — the urgent need for DSA to actually be organizing against the carceral state and mass policing.
The DC chapter — the DSA's third largest — elected a socialist mayor, a councilmember and produced a broad left sweep of the local government just two months back. It is also one of the few chapters that has an organized and active "Abolish Police" working group — so large it often attracts members from other chapters who seek to build their own. The deep base-building and community outreach engaged by organizers who led with these ideas is what produced the conditions for a monumental shift in the city.
You actually do need to have an analysis for what you are going to do about the overburdening of public budgets (and common morality) with rogue and consistently expansive police states. It's really not enough to just say "we're not going to defund" and point fingers at the spooky "left" wing of the organization. If you are not thinking through these problems seriously, working-class voters — who have to actually deal with the problems produced by failed police models in this country — will never find you credible.
Ah yes, great to hear from the condescending pro-cop wing of the DSA. Love to be tut-tutted for believing in police abolition.
Blanc says, “Defund the Police is confusing because it makes it sound like you don’t think any money should go towards the police in the short term.”
Wow, that is quite the projection! He clearly has very little respect, not only for voters, but also anyone who believes in police abolition. Every time I hear someone criticize the slogan, it’s clear to me that it’s not the wording of the slogan or the lack of nuance, but it’s that they are personally pro-cop and they don’t *want* the slogan to gain any traction. Criticizing a popular slogan for not being nuanced enough is nothing but thinly-veiled opposition to the core idea.
Does he know that the pro-life movement has been advocating for abolishing abortion since Day 1, and that because they never hedged, never moderated their position, never tried to win anyone over but instead move full steam ahead toward their ultimate goal, they have come very close to achieving something they believe in very, very strongly? I envy them for making it this far despite never moderating.
Does he also know that Republicans have been calling for the dismantling of just about every institution BUT the police for decades now, and they’ve succeeded because they had strong conviction?
Everybody had time to read Project 2025 three times over and Republicans still won a trifecta, because this country actually loves bold, crazy, unthinkable ideas, no matter what the flavor. MAGA has defunded USAID, leaving millions to die, defunded the DoE, the Dept of Interior, they’ve enacted so much austerity that it’s a wonder why anyone would question the salience of ‘Defund the Police.’
So why can’t we be adults about abolishing the police? Why is it when Republicans call for the defunding of all manner of public programs, that it’s framed as a matter of fiscal conservatism, but when the left does it, we’re being naive and extreme and not nuanced enough? The reason these people hate the slogan is not because it’s politically wrong, but because it’s so simply and concisely anti-cop. That’s it. It’s not semantics, it’s a difference in politics.
Police abolition is a terrible policy, and he was doing his allied advocates a kindness in criticizing it purely in terms of optics. It was also considerate of the listeners, who already know it's a terrible idea and need to be told that the DSA has good things to offer.
Oh yeah, liberation is such horrible, horrible policy, whatever you say, officer.
Oooh, "liberation" from... civilization. Yes, let's return to living in mud.
Nothing wrong the mud, nothing civilized about the police as they exist today.
"as they exist today"
And here come the qualifiers.
Also, bad optics is centrist DSA pinheads pissing on police abolitionists thinking they don't need them. I would second guess that kinda PR if I were him. Not very "considerate" at all when it comes down to it.
Police abolitionists are an albatross around the neck of any mass movement, right next to people who want to eliminate public education. Parties that win with them do so in spite of these policies.
Interesting, the party who has been quite open about abolishing public education since the 60’s just recently won a trifecta in 2024, and they have made serious inroads to accomplishing that horrible goal, and it ain’t like they’ll be punished for it at the ballot box.
But it’s telling that you equivocate the police with public education, as if they are equally necessary institutions. Noted.
Yes, it is telling. I am telling you that they are both public goods. Most people will tell you this. Note it.
Friend, people may tell you such a thing in good faith without knowing that, per the Supreme Court, the police in the United States have no legal duty to serve or assist the general public. They have no legal duty to protect the average citizen from danger or death. They have no legal duty to prevent crime. They don’t even have a legal duty to investigate crimes; they exist to enforce the law.
The laws in this country are pure bananas, which is why they necessitate the threat of deadly force, and the police exist explicitly to offer that service. The law as we know it, English Common Law, exists at the behest of the wealthiest property owners and always has. It’s exists to serve their purposes, first and foremost. In every nation that has adopted English Common Law, this has historically been the case.
Many people may indeed answer in the affirmative that they believe an organized police force is necessary for any civilized society, but then, what good is “civilized” when the police departments all across the country are little more than militarized uniformed gangs who routinely operate outside the law?
Is qualified immunity civilized? No, it’s state-sanctioned murder.
Is civil forfeiture civilized? No, it’s a humiliation ritual that amounts to legalized pillaging.
Are no-knock warrants civilized? Not in any sense of the word.
Is the disproportionate harassing, ticketing, arresting and prosecuting of black and brown people, consistently, for decades, despite all reform efforts, really the mark of a civilized society?
None of this should ever occur in a civilized society but these law enforcement practices are not only routine, they have been in fact blessed by the Supreme Court, making the average police department practically reform-proof. This is why we say abolish.
he was being extremely charitable.
Superb as always Eric. I am proud to stand with you in the “right wing” of DSA, although I hate putting it that way. Your concept of not opposing social democracy to socialism is right on the money. Winning social democracy is a step toward socialism and would be a helluva lot better than our budding fascism. DSA’s growth and electoral successes are approaching a wave. But we still have a ways to go to match the left’s success in the 1930s, especially with our influence in the trade union movement. In the 1930s both were growing. Now we are coming off a long decline. Let’s keep the momentum going.
pitiful interview in which you didnt concede ONCE that DSA wants/needs to go beyong Sweden. no matter how reformist, how gradualist, how rightist (in DSA) you are, you have to concede for the sake of party unity and principle, that you are a socialist committed to socialism. you need to explain this and when they clearly gave you the chance to do so, you rejected it! why? is the goal turning into today's SPD in 20 years or so? if that's the case, go ahead but be honest about it.
Rather than get trapped into debating problematic solutions, like defunding things, we should be making clear that we need to solve the institutional problems caused by the corruption of the two corporate controlled major political parties! Fighting corruption is what defunding is aiming at but we are letting that conversation be derailed by failing to control the narrative.
Go man, go
But not like a yo - yo
Keep cool, man
Real COOL... . . . . .
I'm a proud lifelong social democrat.
Eric's states, "democratic socialists are the only political current that has a solution to the crises that ordinary working people are facing — the affordability crisis, the crisis of political democracy, all of these things that are felt immediately. "
It's OK that I feel excluded by that statement. Boohoo you hurt my feelings.
There is the old problem of the schismophilic left. DSA remains at risk of this failing.
100% I said the same after I saw that terrible Fox News interview, I hope DSA national leaders are getting media training soon and some folks just shouldn’t be leading the organization, especially not at this historic conjunction
…along with the world- wide imperialism and genocides. Electing social democrats will get us nowhere. The 8 hour day was not won by social democrats getting into office. It was won by class struggle movements of workers in the streets. The fight for industrial unions was fought for and won through massive strikes and organized community support in the 30’s. FDR was forced to institute the New Deal because the threat of workers organizing to take state power became too scary for the ruling class. Instead of DSA quibbling over its program it should offer the working class clearly understood demands we can fight for instead of the current hubris of thinking you can do it for us.
Good luck with making a kinder and gentler late-stage capitalism
Hope or magical thinking? Nowhere at any time has gradual improvement of a system resulted in collective power and sharing of society’s wealth. Only an abrupt breaking with the past and its institutions will result in socialism. Even the social democrats of 120 years ago were to the left of Blanc.
Thank you for your analysis and your comments on the radio station. One thing you might’ve said to correct the interviewer is that while many Dsa‘s in Michigan including one I have spoken to are active and supportive ofvAdbul’s campaign, as did I in a very small way, he himself called himself a capitalist, and I think what he met his is in favor of a free market system of some kind, not that he individually is a capitalist.
But the reality is of course that we have a mixed economy and that even in a full-blown democratic socialism, that would be a mixed economy.
As I like to preach, within each policy domain, the progressive pragmatic and democratic socialist position is to ascertain what is the best mix within that area of social policy of the public, market, nonprofit sectors, and what is the role of individual and family responsibility, in order to address human needs in a way that are consistent with human rights. The best mix may differ between areas of policy.
That’s basically a full employment policy for policy analysts! That is sort of a joke since I’ve taught social policy for over 20 years, although lately only social theory. But that’s the problem: We need better theory of Democratic socialism.
Perhaps that’s something that you can work on because your voice is widely respected. I’m taking a shot at it too and have well over 30,000 words written, with the title Are you a Democratic socialist? What kind of Democratic socialist are you?
Perhaps an edited book would be a good idea, but I would like it to be open access, somehow ideas welcome.
Democratic socialists wrap collectivism in the language of democracy, as though putting coercion to a vote makes it voluntary. The ballot box changes who wields the coercive power; it does not make that coercion legitimate.
Democratic socialism is simply another ideology that asks the state to override individual liberty, private property, and voluntary exchange in order to impose its collectivist vision upon peaceful individuals who never consented to it.
You are correct. DSA is for strong social liberties without economic exploitation (what you call “free” exchange). We absolutely want collective solutions, collective enterprises, etc, where democracy is the norm. Libertarians want to be petty dictators of whatever economic kingdom they control, pretending that contracts and “free exchange” make us equal, because “choice.”