The lengthy and thoughtful comments suggest to me that I have failed to make myself clear, for which I apologize. I was not speculating about the desirability of cooperating with the existing leaders of the Democratic Party. I was speculating about taking the Party over. My point about bureaucracy was that the Party, as an existing functioning bureaucracy, is a potentially valuable resource that it would be very difficult to duplicate [not impossible, just very difficult.] If we were to create a third party, it too would be a bureaucracy, of course. Bureaucracy is not a disease or a moral failing; it is way of organzing and managing large and compolex undertakings.
Perhaps an example will make my point clearer. In many states [but not all], a network of regulations and laws make it very difficult for third parties to get on the ballot, or to exercise influence on state legislatures once they do. This is no accident, of course. It is a consequence of deliberate and intentional steps taken by the local Democratic and Republican Parties [steps that would, I assume, be imitated by a newly triumphant Socialist Party, were one to come into existence and win control of the state legislature.]
If a left movement were to take control of a state Democratic Party, as has happened in some states, it would step into an existing structure that secured and magnified its power, a bureaucratic structure designed to take advantage of the rules and regulations put in place by earlier occupants of that structure.
It is not self-evident that this is a more promising path to take, but it is certainly worth considering without one's mind being clouded by hatred for those now occuping the structure. Think of it as moving into a well-appointed and smoothly functioning house built by one's mortal enemy. Superstition to one side, the moral failings of the previous occupant do not lurk in the shadows waiting to do one harm. And if some of the floor plan does not suit one's purpsoes, a little renovation is not impossible.