This letter was initially written to follow up on efforts by members within Triangle DSA, urging our National Political Committee (NPC) member Kevin R to vote in support of the resolution to overturn the ban on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Working Group’s (BDS WG) leadership. In it, I aimed to describe the poor state of open political discussion within DSA and the factions I feel need to speak up in our current moment.
The particular issue of Leadership Ban Reversal was pushed for a separate vote from the Summer quarterly meeting, held on the evening of 8/24, where it resoundingly failed 4.5 Yes to 9 No (for context, the 0.5 vote is one of the two YDSA NPC members, who each get half a vote), Kevin voting No. From a local perspective, I feel we have done all we could. There are no mechanisms within the National DSA or Triangle DSA that mandate NPC members to incorporate the positions of their home chapter in their voting lines. However, what does command those positions is ever so clearly the caucus affiliation of each NPC member. I would like to directly call out the politics behind the bundle of votes regarding the BDS WG, because the sparse conversations regarding the votes have routinely not heeded the calls of “this is directly harming our organizing, Palestinian organizations are boycotting us, staff are quitting, members are leaving, and people see this shit and don’t want to be associated with us” and instead opted for the interpersonal angle regarding the NPCs conflict with the BDS WG. These issues must be separated and dealt with accordingly, and in this letter, I will discuss the political elements regarding the votes.
My position on interpersonal conflict is the same as what was stated in the letter to the NPC by members of Triangle DSA: “Collectively punishing the BDS WG’s leadership risks further conflating the issue of individual problematic behavior and interpersonal conflict with the decidedly political question of the existence and efficacy of the Working Group. To avoid this conflation, consequences for bad behavior on the part of any members of the leadership of the BDS WG must be issued on an individual basis and through the organization’s existing grievance processes.”
Kevin’s internal statement to our chapter and minutes from the 8/24 meeting from Kristian H and Tefa G ignore the material impact of their votes on the direction of the organization. So far, their arguments have mostly focused on the poor behavior of the BDS WG leadership. The 9 NPC members who voted No to reinstatement have done a poor job explaining and communicating the political strategy behind such votes and incorporating member feedback. From the beginning of the Bowman Affair to now, not much has been spoken by National DSA on these issues. We cannot continue having massive ruptures and pretending they did not happen, we cannot continue like everything is fine, that if we just move on from this event, the contractions exposed will resolve themselves over time. Membership has voiced their dissent, the NPC has been shown the chapters affected, the Palestinian organizations who have boycotted us under the conditions that we remove our penalties on the BDS WG have made their position clear, and the effect that these votes have had on DSA staff and our recruitment has been observed by many and is not a secret. Yet minimal effort has been taken to reflect on these moments with membership and chart a productive path forward, why?
Of the 9 members who constitute the “NPC Majority bloc” 4 of them are affiliated with the Green New Deal Slate (Sydney, Gustavo, Ashik, and Tefa), 4 of them with Socialist Majority (Kristian, Jose, Kevin, and Sabrina), and 1 of them from Bread and Roses (Gilman).1 Democracy does not end upon reaching a voting majority – debate, and synthesis of our ideas, are crucial for our organization to act coherently, and for the pressure built up by dissent to have a positive mechanism to release through.
Socialist Majority Caucus (SMC) and those within the Green New Deal slate (GND) have not published something explicitly outlining where they would like DSA to go, and how their actions on the NPC are justified given said political strategy, I can only assume what the goals are. Assumptions are not fit for gauging the political direction of 2 factions of people who I know are fully capable of speaking for themselves, but as of yet, we remain empty-handed on the political perspective of SMC and GND at our moment. The two factions have been closely allied on votes regarding the BDS WG and Representative Bowman – issues that heavily implicate DSA’s orientation to the Democrats and Palestinian Solidarity. Given previous actions and statements from individual members of these groups, I assume that SMC and GND subscribe to a politics of Realignment to the Democratic Party, and not reversing the ban on leadership communicates to me that the BDS WG leadership must be disciplined for publicly challenging the political line of the NPC regarding the Bowman Affair. Realignment, or, the strategy of working within the Democratic Party to try and influence its movement to the left, has its roots in the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and our organization’s founder, Michael Harrington. It is a strategy not without historical legacy, but Realignment was useless for Socialists in the 1970s and should be swept into the dustbin of history for Socialists in 2022.
Doug Enaa, in his article “Michael Harrington and His Afterlives” concludes this regarding Realignment:
His realignment strategy meant that he prized tactics of moderation and compromise for fear of alienating potential allies. Realignment was based on a flawed characterization of the Democratic Party as a coalition of equal interest blocs as opposed to a capitalist-controlled party, which meant any attempt to “capture” the party was doomed in advance. The requirements of Realignment required kowtowing to liberal prejudices, prizing loyalty to American institutions, and an unquestioning reformist vision. As his conduct proved during the Vietnam War, Michael Harrington’s whole strategy acted as a brake and a roadblock to revolutionary action.
In this assumption, DSA, regardless of how revolutionary our members may be and our platform is, must be made safe for cooperation with the Democrats, so we do not lose access to institutional power. I believe that combating US Imperialism and fostering International Solidarity must be held paramount for Socialists if we are to achieve global hegemony, these are issues that run counter to the operating logic of the Democratic party and for DSA to continue working with the Dems and have amicable influence over them, groups that push for international solidarity as a red line to not be crossed must be kept in check. From this perspective, there is a limit to what is considered acceptable critique from National Working Groups; the BDS WG may continue meeting, organizing, and taking political stances regarding Palestine, but if their critiques strike too close to home or upset the wrong person in office, then the reel gets pulled. If I am wrong, I invite the 9 NPC members who voted No and their caucus mates who informed these votes to clarify their position.
Quoting Tefa, “I would just like to start by saying that the measures that were taken does not mean that we don’t support Palestinian work and I just think that’s really important.” One can say that their actions are not intended to cause harm, and still pursue actions that cause harm. The claim made by individuals that DSA, at the level of the NPC, does not support Palestinian work is true, we don’t. Our Palestinian partners have told us EXPLICITLY what we have done wrong and what we need to do to fix it, what threshold is necessary for us to implement their critiques? When do we listen to the people of color within our ranks who are alerting us to actions they view as missteps? We should not uncritically act on what our partner organizations tell us, but we must heed their comments with greater seriousness.
As we stand now, our relationship with orgs like the Palestinian Youth Movement is damaged and our National leadership has given no path forward for rectification or even reassurance that DSA is reflecting and responding to what they tell us. Solidarity without accepting critique, engaging in dialog, and changing our ways is no solidarity. Suppose there was a scenario of a similar manner to that of the Bowman Affair, but that involved social media discipline in regards to the AfroSocialist Working Group running counter to positions put out by the NPC. Would we be having this conversation about leadership bans, dechartering and rechartering? I do not believe so. For an organization as racially anxious and western-centric as DSA, Black liberation is too costly to sideline by decharting its respective working group and sacking its leadership, but our actions towards the BDS WG communicate to me that Palestinian liberation is a chip to bargain with. These struggles are interlinked, and speaking as a Black person, we need to fight for Palestine and ensure that our treatment of Palestinians is up to par with the socialist future we need. Group punishment for individual action is comically punitive for an organization aiming to transform society and liberate the working class.
I recognize that the voting trends of the NPC Majority bloc will not change no matter how much noise those who dissent create. We can have our chapters publish statements, members sign petitions, entrench our local work in genuine Palestinian Solidarity, etc. However, their actions seem to ignore these signals when they are not at a fever pitch of resentment. This must change.
Furthermore, we must recognize that caucuses and other factional bodies have an outsized influence on the political direction of DSA and it is our responsibility as caucused members who wield this disproportionate influence to do so openly and transparently, as we are prefiguring the culture of DSA as a mass socialist party. Until we have proper mechanisms for all members to have their voices heard and represented within this organization without the social capital of a caucus, we need to be loud, clear, and honest with each other.
I make the following asks of comrades within the in-group of a DSA faction, specifically members of SMC and GND but not limited to them.
- Openly and publicly reflect on the past year regarding the Bowman Affair and the BDS WG and explain the voting choices of your NPC member from a political perspective.
- Outline your strategy for DSA using no uncertain terms and post it publicly for all to see. What is your grand strategy? What are our missteps to be corrected? How have your previous efforts made progress in said strategy?
- Engage in public debate! Sam Lewis of SMC’s recent response to Marxist Unity’s Isaac KD and Jack L in Socialist Forum is precisely what I am asking for, and we need more of it. Similar discussions have been had between members of Bread & Roses, Reform and Revolution, Marxist Unity, etc. The void in documented perspective from SMC and GND has been felt, and it should not persist.
- Never be afraid to speak your mind, unity in action requires honesty in practice. When votes are cast, none should be confused as to the political calculations made.
In Struggle,
Robert Fischer
