The recent article by Donald Parkinson was one of the best reviews of the DSA Convention of 2021. As could be expected, it has generated some debate in the formal medium form of letters as well as in many of the usual places in social media. One of the most contested phrases is the relationship of the DSA and the Democratic Party—which I don’t think can be reduced to either “appendage” or total autonomy. I commend the proposals of Marxist Unity Slate and other groups to make the DSA as independent as possible from the Democrats, but the question is, what is stopping the DSA from taking this road?
This question has been brought into stark relief with the Madison chapter of the DSA asking the national organization to expel Jamaal Bowman, a fair request considering Bowman’s sympathy for Colin Powell and his votes for funding Israeli defense systems. Rather than face these votes on sincere terms, procedural arguments have arisen that seek to defend the local’s autonomy while ignoring that Bowman’s image harms the DSA as a whole while he is tapping into DSA resources through the GND in Schools campaign.
A key issue to understanding what is going on with the DSA is the fact that there is no cadre in the DSA. Who is the leader of DSA? Who are the important personalities? Yes, there is a National Political Committee—but are the members of this body looked up to for guidance by new members? Are they representatives of the organization in the outside world? Where in DSA is an authority figure that can publicly condemn Bowman (or AOC or anyone for that matter)? This is left up to the national organization which sometimes censures people, but there is no core cadre of DSA which would command respect beyond their official roles and elected position, something present in many workers’ parties around the world both historically and in the present. This makes most of the public image of DSA hangs around the elected officials, and makes some people very afraid of losing any influence we might have, expressed through things like “if we kick out Bowman we lose a platform!”.
In an ordinary Marxist mass party (or even a sect), there would be some sort of cadre school where people are brought up and educated in the Marxist basic texts, and given more or less a framing of a worldview. This would be tied with an actionable plan for the organization in the short, medium and long-term, that would be scaffolded by the cadres using theory. While I personally think that current sects enforce their worldview on their members too much, DSA has the opposite problem. At the national level, the nitty gritty tasks of cadre are somehow filled up by the caucuses in a very suboptimal manner (what % of members do they cover?), while the visibility and leading by example is completely absent.
Substituting for the official DSA cadre are the elected officials (AOC, Bowman, Cori Bush, etc) who provide an image of leadership. And on a lower level, there are people who act as cadres (providing education & vision) and are deeply committed to the Democratic Party’s model of doing politics as well as tied to local NGOs or progressive groups. These are the people most invested in not censoring Bowman and other opportunistic actions, as they probably are also supporting local politicians who have their hands equally dirty. And this inertially ties DSA to the Democrats: once you enter the DSA you’re very likely to get an invitation to canvas or phonebank by these cadres, as well as a training on how to do these things well. These are low entry activities—and likely to get people out as you feel you are doing something, but the end product of this is reproducing DSA as tied to a certain way of doing politics that will never leave the confines of the DP. All the recent visible campaigns on the PRO Act, the Green New Deal for Schools, etc, are structured around getting members to do things which do not leave the confines of ordinary NGO/Democratic Party politics.
It seems to me that the DSA is structurally liberal, and until this is fixed, even high energy points where left wing ideas are introduced in this structure will only lead to temporary shifts, and the organization as a whole will return to the role of providing foot soldiers for the Democratic Party. Initiatives that could provide an alternative focus and other ways of doing politics, say like tenants unions or EWOC are competing with other initiatives such as GND for Schools (ironically championed by Bowman, and another example of how in the absence of official cadre he acts as one). And they often lose out, as they have less institutional backing and it is left to individual groups to champion them.
I do not know what is the best way to fix it, but cadre schools or a national new member training program that educates people on the DSA program and some basics of theory could provide first steps. The NPC could name people for positions like DSA director of Labor/Housing/ … who would have the power to start campaigns in those areas in ways that are not associated with phone banking and canvassing. EWOC and other Labor coalitions built with unions could be prioritized, as could alliances with newly forming associations of gig workers such as that of New York. The DSA missed an opportunity at this convention to support the Autonomous Tenants Union Network, which is already producing cadre with organizational skills that do not reproduce Democratic Party politics, but this opportunity is not going anywhere. Discontent with the current state of affairs will increase, and more autonomous organizations independent of electoral politics will pop up. These organizations will produce cadre with specific skills useful to the movement, but due to their nature will eventually hit limits too. It is our job to link up with them so a mass workers’ party that is not limited to choosing between electoral struggle or outside struggles can arise.
Comradely,
Renato Flores
