Hello Cosmonaut!
I have read Donald Parkinson’s (DP hence) article mentioned above, as well as materials which the article mentioned (critique of the DSA from “Left Voice”, and the “Marxist Unity Slate” mission statement). So, I imagine that feedback is important for you, and hence I write this.
1) DP writes: “Most of the actual deliberation and adjudication occurred online before the convention in the backroom channels of various caucuses, with the convention simply formalizing decisions already made”.
This is no democracy, as the actual debate is closed to the wide public. This is little secretive deals made in the kitchens, or cabinets, of various leaders. This regime is similar to what we have seen in the former USSR, Yugoslavia, and other pseudo-socialist countries, as nicely described by Milovan Djilas in “The New Class”.
2) “But on the key question of moving towards class independence, this convention was a defeat for those of us who hoped to see DSA move towards becoming a real party of the working class.”
Why use these “cliche”: “class independence”, “real party of the working class”? Their meaning is very vague.
3) “While DSA is still contested territory and worth engaging with, the majority of its members are seemingly comfortable with the way things are going in the org and reject any kind of changes in political strategy that will build an independent electoral apparatus that is actually accountable to the politics of DSA. The message was more of the same, rejecting any bold political vision that would challenge the status quo of the US political system.”
DSA is an appendage of the Democratic party and its politics. Do we need so many words to understand it?
4) “My own group’s attempt to make DSA act a bit more like a proper party that actually made it to be debated on the convention floor, CB8, was also voted down 340-640. By making acceptance of the platform (which was ratified at the convention the day before this constitution change was voted on) the condition of membership in the organization, rather than the vague “acceptance of the principles of democratic socialism”, CB8 was an attempt to make DSA organize itself around the principle of programmatic unity. Rather than making membership be based on a pure big-tent with no clear demarcations from the broader camp of progressives or on the other hand adherence to sectarian understanding of Marxism, we aimed to make membership hinge on the acceptance of a series of overall goals for the movement, some long term such as the establishment of a socialist society, and others more short term”
So, we understand that: a) DSA is a “big tent” for all who accept “principles of democratic socialism”, and, 2) there is no program which would differentiate members from other liberal progressives, on the one side, and sectarian Marxists, on the other.
The immediate question that comes to mind is: is DSA really “democratic” and it is “socialist”? From the article, it follows that there is no real discussion, all questions are predetermined by the political leadership which acts in cahoots with the leadership of the Democratic party. As we shall see, the organization is also not socialist in its politics.
As to the program of the DSA, the Menshevik party of early 1900’s appears as super-revolutionary and sectarian, in comparison to what DSA is today. Wonder if any of the DSA leadership knows any political history.
5) From DP’s writing we see that AOC in Congress acts in disagreement with principles of socialism, even as seen by DSA.
6) Need to explain what “R14” means.
7) DP writes: “What is needed going forward is a concrete analysis of any given situation that looks at the whole balance of geopolitical and class forces at play and a principled application of Marxist political principles. The current terrain of the debate makes such an approach difficult.”
It should be stated clearly that there was no such debate allowed, in spite of efforts of several participants at the 2021 convention.
8) “Left Voice”, an article referred to by the DP, writes: “An organization cannot make a plan for what to do going forward until there is a shared understanding of what has happened and what is currently happening.“
To take a truly independent stance, the Marxist Unity Slate must take a stand on major issues which have confronted the movement over its history. For example, in the former USSR (which is where I am from), this is the issue of Stalin vs. Trotsky, the nature of the states which have formed with the break up of the USSR, the nature of the wars now raging on the territory of the former Soviet Union, as well as adjacent former “socialist” states, such as the former Yugoslavia. In the USA, such issues may be the 1940 murder of Trotsky (some DSA members expressed support for the murder, making jokes about “ice picks”, etc. and, according to DP, within the organization there is a tint of “a hysteria about “Trot entryists”); other issues may be attitude towards wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, in all of which the U.S. in involved, etc. Wars and revolutions are intimately tied together. But you need to express yourself carefully on the issue, as the “Big Brother” is watching us.
9) DP concludes: “despite how frustrating the DSAs current political trajectory may be, it is still the place where committed Marxists need to be working. DSA may have its bureaucratic deformations and cultural problems, but it is still nonetheless a much more democratic organization than the sects and many reformist parties in other countries”.
And:
” DSA needs more open discussions on strategy and politics. One thing that was so frustrating about the convention was the incapacity for so many people to have real political debate. Instead, procedural and personal drama served as proxies for open and honest discussion about politics. We can fight against this toxic culture by setting an example and hosting open and frank dialogues among different factions.”
What it needs to be and what it actually is are quite different things. I want to know: why it makes sense to be in the organization? Is it for this: ” Despite our weaknesses, our organization has attracted tens of thousands to join us in the name of socialism”, i.e. is it because the DSA is a “one big tent”, under the slogan of “democratic socialism”? Then why be critical, for example, of the present day Russian Federation Communist Party, headed by Gennady Zuganov? They also accept everyone under the one big slogan of “communism”, in spite of the fact that this is the party of the former USSR top-level bureaucracy. But that “Communist party” stinks so much that no intelligent leftist wants to join, only careerists who want to make it to the Russian parliament (Duma).
10) DP also writes: “This local work must of course be coupled with a bold vision for the national organization.” But I think that a modern organization should start off as an international organization, with international concerns.
***
A few words about Marxist Unity Slate, referred to by the article above.
1) In the “Mission Statement” https://www.marxistunity.com/
For what reason do you believe that DSA can become such a party?
From what the “Left Voice” said, it appears that odds are against such a belief. For example: “what the 2021 convention clearly highlights is that the DSA has become an organization with far less discussion and debate, signifying a broad consensus around the way forward. And that way forward is tying the DSA more deeply to the capitalist state, not fighting it. On the national level this means making the DSA an electoral machine for the Democratic Party with a passive rank-and-file that campaigns for progressive Democrats. On the international level it means allying with heads of state that dub themselves leftists while implementing austerity and paving the way for an advance of capital. In both cases, there is no perspective of actually fighting the state, only building a “mass party” to take up government posts within it.”
And: “Rather than dedicating time to drawing up a balance sheet of how the organization has engaged in class struggle over the previous year — a process necessary to evaluate and adjust strategy — the discussions were immediately dominated by purely organizational discussions. There were discussions about finances — which differed little from any nonprofit’s report aimed at firing up its base to fundraise — and countless debates about relatively minor details about how to follow through on different political priorities.”
And: “important topics were ignored or barely discussed: the Biden administration, the failure of the Sanders campaign, Israel’s latest offensives against Palestine, and the Black Lives Matter movement”.
So again: what reason for working within the DSA?
2) “Mission statement” continues: “DSA members across the country are steeped in activism, whether on the streets, in their unions, or otherwise, yet there is no agreed-upon political vision that can serve as a united basis for action.”
Here, we have activism vs. political and theoretical perspectives.
Frankly, I don’t see a theoretical perspective in other U.S. organizations mentioned by the DP article. This includes the “Left Voice” and “Tempest”.
3) You write regarding your program: “taken all together, the implementation of our minimum program would spark a qualitative rupture with the current order and require the convening of a constituent assembly to replace the US Constitution, as well as the dissolution of the standing army and national security state”.
This is a lame statement, after “State and revolution” written by Lenin. There is no “qualitative rupture with the current order” without destroying the old state and its repressive machine, which in essence means violence, civil war.
4) “Being able to carry out this full minimum program must be our basic condition for taking any responsibility for government, even at the level of a single department, in order to ensure that when we come to power the proletariat comes to power along with us”. From this it follows that the Marxist Unity Slate is also interested in taking up government posts in the existing capitalist state (just like the right wing tendency in the DSA). The question is: whether or not a socialist, revolutionary organization can take up any post within any existing capitalist state? The answer was answered in the negative, right from the time of the Second International (in 1899 Alexander Millerand “entered Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau’s cabinet of “republican defence” as Minister of Commerce”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
5) “DSA is currently working on a National Platform that might resemble a Marxist minimum-maximum program to be adopted at the 2021 convention”.
This turned out to be false. It was the Marxist Unite Slate working on this program. The people who run the DSA are the Democratic party whips. They are not working on a Marxist program. They are scheming on how to shut up the activists and make them pull the next Democratic candidate.
6) You write: “we shouldn’t forget that August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknicht, members of the same German socialist party infamous for backing World War I, had decades prior risked everything, even against the advice of Marx and Engels, to oppose the Franco-Prussian War”.
What does that mean? Bring in the evidence. As far as I know, Marx and Engels supported the Prussian state in the war against France, as they believed this to be a defensive war, due to the “Ems telegram” which Bismark faked.
I hope this is a useful feedback on your article and statement,
“Tommy Joad”
