This analysis doesn't need to stop at the Democratic Party. You can
also think about the way that a large section of the non-profit
sector plays a similar role in domesticating leadership and
organizers of counter-systemic movements. robert wood
>
> That's not to say the left has no relation to the DP. Of course it
> does, but I think Carrol's concern with "the way in which the DP
> bleeds movements not only of 'mass followers' but of organizers and
> leadership" does more to reinscribe the relationship than it does to
> interrupt it, specifically by declaring the DP's omnipotence.
>
> Carrol is fond of talking about Wisconsin and how it has opened new
> possibilities, which I agree with. But part of what made Wisconsin
> "Wisconsin" was the role that Democratic legislators played in the
> events, particularly their fleeing the state and disrupting the
> legislative process, which helped create the space that allowed the
> protest movement to flourish, to become creative. I don't think it's
> declaring, either descriptively or normatively, the left's dependency
> on the DP to acknowledge that that's what went on *in this instance*.
> Of course the Dems had their own, ultimately nefarious reasons for
> doing it, and it's certainly worth discussing whether the Dems need
> the protesters or vice versa (though it's both), but Wisconsin shows
> that, whether Carrol likes it or not, there is, structurally, a
> relationship between the left and the DP, and that it doesn't have to
> be one that sucks the former dry (though I agree with Carrol and Doug
> that it almost always does).
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>