I would like to thank Shuvu Bhattarai for the intelligent and informative article, “Unite the Pro-Party Wing to Revolutionize the DSA!” (March 3, 2023). As a revolutionary who has, at least so far, chosen not to join DSA, it helps me to make sense of developments that I have been following–though from afar and not with the diligence that perhaps I should.
After reading this piece, however, it seems to me that it begs the obvious question: What accounts for the tenacity of the anti-party wing of DSA? What will be needed for the pro-party wing to be victorious (victorious not just in the form of having one resolution or another adopted at a convention, but in the form of actually transforming the practice of DSA as a national formation)?
And to me the answer seems obvious too: If this battle has not been won so far over the course of three conventions–with a fourth pending (the general relationship of forces remaining pretty much constant during that period)–then it’s reasonable to conclude that it isn’t going to be won based on a purely programmatic/intellectual engagement. Something has to change in the actual levels of struggle in the USA that will make the idea of DSA as an independent party formation, not tied to the “left” wing of the Democrats, make sense–either to a new layer of radical activists who will then join DSA, or to layers of the present membership whose consciousness is open to becoming transformed, or both.
In the present political atmosphere, where perhaps 99 percent of the US population who actively reject the increasingly right-wing and proto-fascist drift of the Republican Party see the Democrats as the only practical alternative, shifting DSA to a perspective that is the polar opposite of that mass consciousness seems extremely unlikely.
What alternative possibilities are there for those within DSA who favor the pro-party position if the ideological/organizational struggle remains deadlocked? Once again it seems obvious to me that at some point a process focused on convention resolutions will run out of steam and lead to a disengagement, perhaps even demoralization, by the less committed layer of activists. If what Bhattarai reports is accurate (confirmed for me by another correspondent) a process of disengagement seems to be already underway, affecting even some of the more committed activists. It therefore seems clear that advocates of a DSA break with the Democratic Party need to begin planning actively for the likelihood that in order to most effectively pursue their objective of a mass socialist party that can function with even a minimal level of discipline and ideological cohesion they need to break with DSA, or at least with the illusion that they can transform DSA into the kind of party they envision without substantial changes in the levels of mass struggle and mass consciousness in the USA.
Bhattarai does give a nod in this direction in the article’s concluding section: “Pro-partyists must prepare a Plan B in case they are unable to transform the DSA. The unity formed out of the agreement to the pro-party program should be concretized into a formal organization, operating within and outside the DSA as a ‘party within a party,’ constantly swimming against the stream and growing its forces till it is able to build the mass socialist party needed to lead the working class to Socialism.” I guess my question is whether this is, really, plan B, or needs to be elevated at the present moment to plan A?
I pose that as an honest question even though I am suggesting a possible answer. I understand fully the difficulties that lurk when those who are not actively engaged in a process (like myself) begin to think that they can suggest the proper strategy for those who are engaged. But there is a mirror image difficulty as well: that those who are deeply invested in a particular strategy, and involved in carrying it out, may be too close to developments to see when a shift in their approach is needed.
Finally, let me raise a question about the following paragraph:
As a result of [the 2021] convention, despite the defeats of resolutions that would have decisively taken DSA into a path of political independence, the organization shifted further in a pro-party direction. The DSA came out of the convention with a greater level of centralization, and with the acceptance of the political platform. Though this platform is not yet tied to membership, its acceptance has opened up the path for DSA electeds to be held under the discipline of the organization, which has now become the primary point of debate. The DSA would again expand its paid staff and bureaucracy (emphasis added).
The words in boldface strike me as looking through rose-colored glasses. Greater centralization, if it is bureaucratic centralization, does not move DSA toward political independence. The door to holding elected officials accountable will remain firmly shut unless there is a will of the organization to open it. If that will is lacking the adoption of the program opens no doors whatsoever. Since Marxist Unity’s motion to hold electeds accountable was defeated by a margin of almost two-thirds, it does seem clear that the will is lacking. Once again the debate on this is unlikely to be victorious on a purely programmatic/intellectual level.
Let me also note a mild dissent from the proposal by Marxist Unity to make agreement with the adopted program a criterion for membership. In spirit I think that’s right–if we are talking general agreement and not agreement in every detail, which we should never expect to achieve. In practice, however, this idea seems to be far in advance of what’s actually possible in DSA given its present level of political cohesion and collective practice. Organizational measures can never race ahead of these two elements. I note that while the program was adopted at the last convention, nearly 45 percent of the delegates voted against it. What would be the consequence of adopting the Marxist Unity proposal that agreement with the program become a criterion for membership? Would it mean that the 55 percent in favor should expel the 45 percent against? Even if we account for the possibility that some of this 45 percent voted “no” not because they disagreed with the program but because they disagreed with the idea of adopting any program, there remains a significant layer that objects to the substance of the program that was approved. I hope the answer to the idea of expulsions will be “no” from everyone. But if our answer is “no” how do we escape the logical necessity that would seem to exist had the Marxist Unity proposal to make agreement with the program a criterion for membership been adopted?
Interested in Bhattarai’s response to the questions raised above, or any response from someone presently engaged in this struggle within DSA.
-Steve Bloom
