The priorities aren't the issue, it's further evidence he's a weird liar. The political incoherence of his internal DSA coalition is astounding to behold.

And more specifically our analysis is very much drawn from roughly this moment. I think we'll continue to hold the coherence or our politics together, but it will be interesting to see how the next hand off works out.

Yes, though we both have significantly longer political histories pre DSA, us in the macnairite wing of Cosmo and R&R as the pro DSA split from SALT. But nonetheless you have a point in that the most prominent voices in both caucuses are much younger and homegrown DSA.

(I would've said this more carefully with a longer word limit 😅)

And compounding that we also vote on like... everything. We're the only caucus I'm aware of that does general meetings (monthly, 25% quorum, anyone can submit business) and our congresses are like 95% voting business.

The result all of which is a lot of organic pressure to develop shared positions

And if anything I would say our penchant for near permanent and (preferably) public debate continually smooths out edges as new questions emerge. Debate doesn't always resolve things but it forces people to put their position in shared terms, and if people don't like it they often leave.

Not to special pleading but we (and maybe R&R) aren't that eclectic. Like obviously there's been a lot of thinking and disagreement within the caucus, but between the reader and Macnairism we're mostly all bought in on arguing our positions within a well established framework.

Looked up what Chibber has to say on this and found this article which looks cool, but pay walled 😞

journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10....

Basically it goes like:

socialism requires majority->majority requires reforms->reforms requires appealing to a cross class coalition-> cross class coalition requires constitutionalism

and in fairness those arguments are pretty broadly accepted in some form almost everywhere.

I guess to pinpoint where they retain the Bernstein through Chibber it is in their pessimism about the possibility of anti constitutional electoral politics in what Blanc calls "high participation democracies."

Yeah it's lurking there for sure, but the eclecticism and the weird formation history muddles everything. Like I'm no expert but I feel like Miliband's position (which is their canonical view on the reformism question) is closer to the Austro-Marxist's than Bernstein's. Maybe that's splitting hairs.

Yeah but honestly that's mostly from ignorance. Theory people do identify with Gøsta Esping-Andersen, Adam Przeworski, and Chibber who are quiet about it but do affirm Berstein's position.

Oh field vs comms is another big element here.

"Look we all agree about the constitution, that's why some of us think it's unimportant!"