Why did you ask me a rhetorical question
A warning (for comments I guess). I really like to answer rhetorical questions. The answers are quite long. I can semi remember one. Being clever (as he often is*) Matthew Yglesias asked how and when the Democratic Socialists became bitter adversaries of the Social Democrats, which is odd since both phrases are translations of the same polysyllabic German word. I happened to know the approximate answer (I didn’t recall the exact date which turns out to be a few years later than I thought).
As is usual, the Socialist Party split over a war — in this case the US-Vietnamese war. The Social Democrats supported US involvement in the war. The Democratic Socialists opposed it. This is a common reason for Socialist parties to split. It turns out that this occurred very late — in 1972. I would tend to guess that views of George McGovern were related.
The split is, of course, quite bitter. So, for example, this Wikipedia article, has the warnings
The political neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (November 2021) |
This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (November 2021) |
Anyway, it notes the basic facts
“
Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) is a social-democratic organization established in 1972 as the successor of the Socialist Party of America (SPA). The SPA had stopped running independent presidential candidates and consequently the term “party” in its name had confused the public. Moreover, replacing the “socialist” label with “social democrats” was meant to disassociate the group from the Soviet Union.[3]
SDUSA, which was fiercely anti-communist, pursued a strategy of political realignment intended to organize labor unions, civil rights organizations and other constituencies into a coalition that would transform the Democratic Party into a social-democratic party. The realignment strategy emphasized working with unions and especially the AFL–CIO, putting an emphasis on economic issues that would unite working class voters. SDUSA opposed the Senator George McGovern‘s “New Leftist” approach, pointing to the rout suffered in the 1972 presidential election. As a result, some SDUSA members, like Penn Kemble and Joshua Muravchik, were associated with neoconservatism. SDUSA’s activities have included sponsoring discussions and issuing position papers. SDUSA has included civil rights activists and leaders of labor unions such as Bayard Rustin, Norman Hill and Tom Kahn of the AFL–CIO as well as Sandra Feldman and Rachelle Horowitz of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).*
Internationally, the group supported the dissident Polish labor organization Solidarity and several anti-communist political movements in global hot spots.
SDUSA’s politics were criticized by former SPA chairman Michael Harrington, who in 1972 announced that he favored an immediate pull-out of American forces from Vietnam and coined the term “neoconservative”. After losing all votes at the 1972 convention that changed the SPA to SDUSA, Harrington resigned in 1973 to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, the forerunner of the Democratic Socialists of America.”
So it happened in 1973 (I would have guessed about 5 years earlier).
*non Irony alert
**One might also hetorically ask why the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association can’t stand each other.
Matthew Yglesias asked how and when the Democratic Socialists became bitter adversaries of the Social Democrats…
[ Nicely and appreciatively answered, but what has this to do with social-politics now? Does this relate, say, to positions in Nation now? Does this relate to any possible relevance of democratic socialists or social democrats now?
I have no idea of how to approach answering now.
Please do respond when possible. ]
My reply to Yglesias was, as suggested by my title, mostly a joke. The stuff from 1973 is no longer relevant to politics today. Partly I was noting that I am really old.
I think that “social democrat” now just means center left. The old Social Democratic organization is now irrelevant. The DAA are still active. Unfortunately, I think their effect is mainly to give Repiublicans targets and, also, maybe to convince young people that Biden is too far right to support.
Things are quite different now than they were in the 1960s. The Democratic party has moved left (it had a longgg way to go with an unltraright Southern wing and a lot of crazy hawks. Now it is a reasonable left of center party,
The GOP has also changed. It is now a menace to US Democracy. I think it is time for all antiTrympers to unite and get to our disagreements only after he is no longer such a threat
In other words, I am now a social democrat
Ah, the kind response just now appeared. A fine response that makes the post relevant from the beginning and makes clear your present stance. This is really helpful:
“In other words, I am now a social democrat.”
I am so pleased I asked for an interpretation.
My new grateful response should appear in a while.
I thought about this post again and looked for a response, but I do not understand what the post is actually about or why it might matter. Thanks, but with no help any further thought seems not to matter.
Since R. Waldmann wrote about “ethnic cleansing” a while ago, possibly this precursor to more than a century of such terrible events, to the present, would be of interest:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/world/europe/germany-namibia-genocide.html
May 28, 2021
A Forgotten Genocide: What Germany Did in Namibia, and What It’s Saying Now
The German government agreed to recognize the killings of two ethnic groups in Namibia as genocide. What happened more than 100 years ago, why was it forgotten, and what is Germany doing to atone?
By Norimitsu Onishi and Melissa Eddy
It has been called the first genocide of the 20th century, the “forgotten genocide’’ and the genocide that was the precursor of the Holocaust. Tens of thousands of Africans were killed between 1904 and 1908 by German soldiers in what is now Namibia, a vast, arid country northwest of South Africa.
German soldiers targeted people of two ethnic groups — the Herero and the Nama — because they had resisted land grabs by German settlers….
ltr:
And this relates to this post, how? Oh, it doesn’t.
LOL ~ ltr is an AI in training …
What I wrote above in explanation of an article that might be of interest and use to Mr. Waldmann:
Since R. Waldmann wrote about “ethnic cleansing” a while ago, possibly this precursor to more than a century of such terrible events, to the present, would be of interest.
[ Try not being so rude. Just try. ]
“And this relates to this post, how? Oh, it doesn’t.”
[ I explained politely that I was only trying to be of assistance to Mr. Waldmann, in relation to an earlier post by him. I was thoughtful and careful, with only an effort to assist Mr. Waldmann.
Do try being polite. ]
“forgotten genocide’’ … “precursor of the Holocaust”
Thirty-five million First Americans were put to the sword in the name of the Christian dog in what we today think of as “America” alone, a genocide of perhaps a hundred million Human Beings across the “western hemisphere”
I guess that doesn’t count as “genocide”, aeh … ?
Since the GOP ‘Southern Strategy’ took effect, ‘Republican’ now means Democrat, and ‘Democrat’ now means Republican.
The Democratic party having taken up the legacy of Abe Lincoln, and the GOP Thomas Jefferson.
The relevance of the above is that anyone can name a political party anyway the want to, and the name does not need to make (much) sense. Obviously, it can be better to confuse.
The party of Thomas Jefferson was originally known as the ‘Democratic Republicans’.
The bottom line is that one should pay attention to what the parties do, not their names.
The modern Republican Party is now the right-wing extremist party of Trump.
The modern Democratic Party is the conservative party, what used to be called “Rockefeller Republicans.”
There is no significant political party representing liberals or the left in America.
This is mainly a nation of centrists, or moderates. Very bourgeois it seems.
The MAGA GOP is the right fringe, the progressives are the left fringe.
With the young people coming of age more comfortable with the left, mostly?