Genevieve R of SMC has recently put out a regrettably lazy essay on the topic of political independence.^[1] I say lazy not because it is deprived of rhetorical value, or that it was hastily formatted, but because Genevieve doesn’t really engage with the substance of the debate she is intervening in. Instead we are treated to an extensive series of rhetorical flourishes meant to dismiss the idea that there’s a debate to be had about independence at all. That we need to be talking about “power” instead.^[2] The consequence of this however is that there’s very little space in her article to actually discuss the author’s claims, let alone their justification for believing them. As such, rather than being able to engage with Genevieve as a serious theorist of political strategy, I am compelled to engage with her article like a teacher wondering if they did any of the assigned readings.

Against Wordplay

Genevieve begins her article by dismissing the use of the word independence outright. Independence in politics is apparently “oxymoronic,” because political actors must make decisions in alignment and contest with others.^[3] This is a remarkably strict definition of independence, requiring an isolation from cause and effect entirely. The author instead prefers to talk about “power,” as reflected in things like “owning our infrastructure.” Every debate over independence I’ve heard has included discussions about things of that exact nature. So it would be ideal to stop here and simply accept this as the beginning of Genevieve’s own definition for what political independence entails.

But instead of having a debate in which Genevieve has now defined her terms, instead of moving on to present her argument… We are treated to more wordplay. There’s quoting of some details about how others have related to independence, which are dismissed out of hand because they’re not using independence to mean “not dependent on other things.”^[4] B&R’s emphasis on SIO’s as a means of developing independence? Irrelevant, because SIO’s organizing of voting and comms is often in response to the actions of other politicians. It is thus impossible to discuss with Genevieve how B&R’s proposal relates to ‘independence’ or ‘power,’ because all she has presented in those paragraphs are dictionary games.

The author would like to defend this word-play as necessary, because it’s “confusing” and apparently even dishonest to use independent in a different way than her.^[5] Unfortunately this is the most ridiculous claim in the entire article. I’m of the age where I am increasingly congratulating peers for starting ‘independent’ living, and at no point has even the most pedantic philosophy major thought to point out he is actually dependent on the system of markets and wage labor, because we both know we are referring to an independence from things like living at home, not living in society. Words are always being used in context, and there is nothing dishonest about this fact applying to politics too. If it is ever confusing, then it is only because something like ‘political independence’ is a complex topic.

I will return in a moment to the more culturally-minded remarks on the word independence, but before doing so I have to emphasize the loss here. There are meaningful points scattered throughout the article! Genevieve notes how even a strong majority can fragment due to internal squabbles.^[6] Her legislative example is especially valid given the legally decentralized structures of US parties. It’s a detail that, unlike ownership of infrastructure, that I often find neglected or awkwardly rug-swept in some of the DSA Left’s discourse on the topic.

But that needle of insight vanishes in the haystack of filibustering about what word to use. This only somewhat re-emerges in the final few concluding paragraphs, where she ponders what constitutes a meaningful contribution to ‘power.’ It’s worth discussing how important it actually is to develop an alternative to VAN, or the best way to autonomously collaborate with progressive orgs such as the WFP. I honestly suspect she and I would have a fair bit in common in discussing how we build power, what meaningful factors constitute and contribute to political independence as it is debated in DSA. Unfortunately that’s impossible when all the time which could be dedicated to elaborating on those factors, and her justifications for believing them, is taken up by dancing around the debate itself.

Toward Substance

The most egregious example of this dance is found in the rambling remarks made about our individualistic culture. I don’t disagree with most of the claims made in the abstract. But there’s really no point to these paragraphs in the scope of most DSA caucuses, certainly not when it comes to the caucuses discussed. In essence the entire section is just dodging the substance of the debate on independence. Sure, we get dopamine hits from the validation of an individualist ideology instructed to us by US society. Why does this matter, what is the relevance to building power? By which one would essentially just mean developing the conditions for political independence, a necessary note to make given the weirdly strict line the author has tried to place between the two near identical concepts.

Fortunately, unlike with everything else, a relatively clear explanation is offered for why this is being brought up. The author is critiquing a strain of “liberal-leftism,” in which independence is measured by rhetorical stances rather than ‘power.’^[7] By which they seemingly mean the power to, “work together as a class to replace capitalism and improve life on this planet.”^[8] Again though that is a regular part of the independence debate within and between DSA caucuses! The debate is about how we get to that Genevieve described stage, rather than having a working class which is scattered and subordinated to the ideas and interests of the bourgeoisie! I’m sure that condition would make for a great dopamine hit, but not because of cultural individualism.

In fact, if we review the article’s earlier quote from MUG we can see an immediate overlap in concern for working as a class against capitalism. By Genevieve’s own example, the goals and ideas which this topic of independence revolves around for MUG are “to persuade the class that our party can be the vehicle for the working class to build a real democracy and a path to socialism.”^[9] The logical response to this is not to tut-tut and say independence is actually one of several definitions found in the dictionary. It’s to discuss what is critical to this form of political independence, and how we get there. How else can we know where MUG’s theory of power ends and SMC’s begins without such discussions?

We can’t, because rather than argue about the practical nature of power with MUG we have some unrelated criticism of unknown ultras. I quite literally do not know what in MUG’s definition is being actionably objected to. If Genevieve had explained that, then we could be discussing our agreements and disagreements over those criteria and plans. We could be debating the substance of political strategy, not the form of writing essays. But she barely touches other’s claims outside word choice, and she doesn’t explain how she arrived at her own conclusions. She just keeps reasserting how silly people sound for using the word independence when it’s given a comedic level of inflexibility.

As such the best I could do if I wanted to engage in the substance of the debate with her would be to make my own best guesses and extrapolations from which to form a critique. But that would likely render our exchange useless, muddied with ‘actually I meant this,’ and ‘No I think the reason Y happens is because of X, not Z.’ All things which should have taken up the space devoured by dictionary games. Consequently, nothing would be accomplished by a more substantive critique than the act of writing itself.

A Better Org is Possible

We don’t write polemics and essays in DSA simply to write, or because the act of disagreeing is personally enjoyable. We write them because they reflect a particular knowledge about the world, and perhaps a different system of analysis for understanding it. By comparing and interrogating these things we are able to both jointly develop tactical innovations, and give clear distinctions to members on strategic viewpoints. By doing so we not only create better organizers across the board, but we reduce the sense of suspicion and alienation that exists between caucuses and even chapters. For all her concern over cultural individualism, Genevieve should consider being more mindful of the organizational atomization she is contributing to.

Because substituting real arguments and details with word games, or randomly inserting some critiques of a “left-liberalism” unrelated to the factions they’re naming in their disagreements is destructive. Those who do it are undermining the development of an organizational culture that values productive collaboration. DSA members deserve honest and open debate, in the future I hope all our writers will focus on protecting that standard instead of offering up empty rhetoric. Because in the future I would much rather focus on discussing the strengths and complications of Genevieve’s wonderful electoral work rather than her rhetorical decisions. Unfortunately this style of writing simply made it impossible to do so.

-Sylus S.

1. Genevieve R., “No One Is ‘Politically Independent,’” The Agitator. April, 2025, https://www.socialistmajority.com/theagitator/no-one-is-politically-independent; relevant quotes provided in the following footnotes are all drawn from this piece.

   ↩

2. “To get clear on where our party project needs to go, we should understand why we’re wired to fixate on “independence”—and why we need to instead graduate to talking about owning our infrastructure, and having measurable power to override other actors in the political matrix.”

   ↩

3. “There is no actually good definition, because "political independence" is an oxymoron: no political force in the world is "independent" from other forces.”

   ↩

4. “If your response to this is, ‘that’s a strawman, I’m not using independent to mean not dependent on other things,’ you’re proving my point.”

   ↩

5. “That is very confusing. We should aspire toward something more honest.”

   ↩

6. “And in that world, a subset of our party might break off and form their own party in order to negotiate concessions from us, in exchange for keeping the governing majority together.”

   ↩

7. “That's a core distinction between individualistic and solidaristic worldviews, and understanding it is how we graduate from liberal leftism—where success is measured by individual right-thinking and aesthetic choices—to organized socialist politics, where we work together as a class to replace capitalism and improve life on this planet.”

   ↩

8. Genevieve R, “No One Is ‘Politically Independent.’”

   ↩

9. Ibid.

   ↩