ISSUE #3

by Caoimhín Perkins

My first takeaway is how huge of a split we have when it comes to electoral politics. This is demonstrated by a glaring inconsistency with how we voted on two amendments to the National Electoral Committee Resolution. We quite easily passed Amendment I, “Act Like An Independent Party,” which said DSA should slowly transition away from working with the Democratic Party by 

1. Establishing our own resources outside of the tools and lists,
2. Identifying our candidates as socialists and separate from the DP,
3. Establishing candidate schools,
4. Establishing our own legislative programs,
5. Expecting our candidates to cross-endorse each other and bloc vote,
6. Developing our own party identity,
7. Expecting candidates to publicly and loudly identify as Democratic Socialists, and
8. Establish Socialists in Office committees

However, when it came time to vote on Amendment P, “Towards A Party-Like Electoral Strategy,” we choked. How are any of the below not necessary for acting like an independent party, something we had just voted to do?

1. Demanding candidates publicly and loudly champion DSA’s platform and identify as socialists
2. Demanding they always vote against police funding, military funding, carceral legislation, anti-labor legislation, and other racist, sexist, queerphobic, ableist, and xenophobic legislation
3. When they breach a standard they have not committed to, that we engage in a process of educating them, and that if they still refuse to meet this standard, that we de-endorse
4. Demanding they cross-endorse and bloc-vote
5. Demand that DSA electeds meet quarterly with their chapters to discuss legislative priorities
6. Requiring National create a group that would meet with and hold accountable DSA electeds in federal office

Every single point here can be found in Amendment I or is just a more rigorous form of what was in Amendment I. And yet, Amendment P failed to pass, and the yes vote was significantly less than the yes vote on Amendment I. The point of contention was, of course, point (3), which created consequences for crossing the red lines established in point (2). 

Comrades claimed that demanding expulsion for candidates was a purity test that sacrificed power. I spoke on the floor in favor of this amendment, explaining that there was no purity test, only a way of educating and holding electeds accountable. Sometimes being principled is the best praxis, and this is case in point. Point (4) even says that we have to educate candidates first, especially on subjects that we failed to educate them on in the first place. This is practically the same thing as point (3) for Amendment I, with the added caveat that candidates can be flunkies in this school and be (as the sternest, but not the first, consequence) de-endorsed. So, either the comrades who claimed a purity test did not actually read the Amendment P, or they don’t mind continuing to endorse electeds that vote in favor of oppression. Either way, they left us with no way to actually enforce our independent identity. To those who did not read the amendments properly, a certain Marxist once said, “Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. How can a communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense? It won’t do! You must not talk nonsense!”

To the comrades who think the de-endorsement and red lines themselves are bad and actually read the amendment, I have to ask what your goal is. This refusal to create accountability structures is a consistent issue we have where I am left wondering how serious a majority of our comrades are about socialism and whether they even know what they want. We have no long term electoral strategy; instead we have comrades fluttering like chickens over short term gains from electing supposed progressives to offices they can lose in 2-4 years while gridlocked against capitalist politicians. I spoke with some comrades who thought that if their moderate democrat in Alabama or city council person in San Diego weren’t up to snuff because of Amendment P, then they would fail. This is ridiculous.

Are we going to have a reformist revolution in 4-8 years? No, and we never will. We’re so focused on big-tents that we’ve forgotten we have to actually seize the means of production like we always say we will, and we cannot do that if we aren’t demanding more of ourselves. The seizure of the state and an entire economy is not some picnic where everyone drops their yes and no votes in a ballot box, and this is especially not the case in a country that was built on stolen land, has the largest military in the world, and has the world’s fourth largest police force. We are the backbone of global capitalism, and those in power will not simply let us reform our way out of it. They are fighting back through police violence, union busting, assassinations, stacking the courts, and attempted coup d’etats. Those of us set on electoral politics can’t even get our electeds to engage with us because we’re scared that we’ll have a few less useless representatives.

We need to get real. Electoralism is not the revolution, but if we’re dedicating resources to it, we could at least have high standards so that we can reliably gain non-reformist reforms. Why even say we’ll act like a separate party if we aren’t going to have something to offer that’s different from progressive Democrats? What will we be except for just another third party? I don’t understand why anyone goes to the convention of the largest socialist organization in the United States just to say that we can’t demand our socialist electeds engage with their base and legislate to a higher standard than capitalist electeds.

The second takeaway is that we have many comrades who still believe that gridlocked politicians are more important to building power than having strong connections with Palestinian and Anti-Zionist organizations. I’m not sure when they started prioritizing individuals over multi-racial mass politics, but we love to mix up our priorities for wins that are aesthetic blockbusters over wins that have substance. There were a number of maneuvers made by those chairing the convention that blocked MSR-12, an Anti-Zionist resolution, from even being brought to the floor. The majority of us voted to refer it to the incoming NPC, probably hoping it would get tanked. I don’t understand anyone who thinks multi-racial mass politics isn’t good for socialism, but keeping around a man who is unrepentant in being buddy-buddy with J-Street and the Iron Dome is. 

Some might say that we can find a third way on that issue, and in another timeline, one where we already had a national accountability structure in place when Bowman broke with DSA, they might be right. But we aren’t in that timeline, and so I would pose this question: do the Palestinian organizations that are writing us off care about that non-existent third way? They don’t, and we voted down the two opportunities to create that national accountability structure. So, again, I am wondering how serious some comrades are about this or whether they actually read these resolutions. Do we not want better for ourselves? Maybe MSR-12 will be passed by the new NPC’s narrow left-majority. That remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that even though both the national BDS working group and International Committee said they didn’t want to be merged, a majority of delegates said “surely they can’t know what they’re talking about,” and merged them anyway.

The third takeaway, as someone who is not a member of any caucus, is that my view of caucuses is slightly less pessimistic—but is still pessimistic, for different reasons. There were definitely cynical uses of power, but in most cases we were all on the same team, even when we were in direct conflict. But it still felt like it encouraged this maneuvering. My thoughts on this are partly informed by history—ultras and libertarian socialists like to criticize Lenin for banning caucuses from existing in the Soviet communist party, calling it anti-democratic. I’m starting to understand why he did it, even though I think banning wasn’t the solution. It feels like for all the power caucuses bring us for organizing on a national level, the side effect is that we have more competition that keeps us from functioning properly. It was astonishing to go from Denver to a National that was a delicate “balance” between hating each other’s guts and knowing we all had (approximately) the same skin in the game at the end of the day. This was, of course, always far more noticeable on votes that posed deep political questions, creating controversy where some comrades refused to look at reality and instead decided to go with their imaginary ideal of how our organization should work. I don’t have a solution to the caucus problem, but there needs to be one.

P.S. – There were bingo cards filled with convention buzzwords, courtesy of the National Housing Justice Commission. I got Bingo twice. 

P.P.S. – Having grown up in the Great Lakes region, quite possibly nothing will top the moment when Stephanie got to the shore of Lake Michigan, couldn’t see the other side, and yelled “this is a LAKE????”

~~

Caoimhín Perkins has been a member of Denver DSA since 2019. They are a former teacher and union steward who works in DDSA’s labor, housing, and internal organizing committees.