Towards Solidarity & Democracy

Jesse W, Alex M, Corinna, and Nafis H from Boston Refoundation

The proposed amendment regarding absentee voting alters one current condition of Boston DSA’s internal democracy — that most votes are cast at a general meeting.

As we consider the proposal to introduce online voting into our Chapter’s bylaws we should also consider how the democracy we wish to achieve is more complex than the simple act of voting.

On Solidarity

A number of us joined the DSA in the wake of Trump’s election. At the same time, some of us also joined Our Revolution, Brand New Congress, and Justice Democrats. We were no longer capable of sublimating the poverty, misery, environmental devastation, domestic and international violence that capitalism has wrought and we needed to be working towards our collective liberation, regardless of political ideology.

The reason that we stayed and became active in the DSA was because this organization offered an opportunity to build power from the bottom up into a movement capable of challenging and liberating us from capital. At its finest, the DSA cultivates a community dedicated to growing power, building solidarity, and promoting socialism.

We often use the word solidarity to describe our actions but do not consider what solidarity means, or how we build it. Solidarity, in simplest terms, is a unity based on a community of common understanding. It is not easy to build or to maintain across wide differences in privilege, identity, and ideology. Solidarity requires struggle but that struggle is critical if we are to create a healthy community capable of effective organizing.

When crafting our democratic processes, we should train a critical eye towards how to develop our solidarity within the organization. The amendment before us changes Boston DSA from an organization that primarily debates and decides matters in person into one that will primarily do so online. Before we take this vote, we would be wise to ask ourselves what such a change means for our capacity to build solidarity and organize together.

On Participation

The proposed amendment accompanies first-hand accounts of our comrades who have each experienced barriers to attending GMs. The testimonies are compelling and it is critical to consider them in full. It is equally critical to recognize that we are a Chapter of 1400 people, all of whom have their own individual challenges which may present in a wide variety of ways. Some of us work during the week, some of us work at night, and some of us work on the weekends. Some of us have anxiety provoked by meeting in-person; some of us have anxiety provoked by written communication. Some of us have learning disabilities that pose challenges in-person; some of us have learning disabilities that pose challenges online. Some of us thrive on social interaction and some of us shy away from it.

Expanding member participation in Chapter decision-making and creating a culture of inclusion should be a common goal of any organization that ostensibly promotes a democratic school of thought. To that end, this amendment proposes that blending online and in-person debate over the course of seven days will maximize accommodation of all of our individual needs. We disagree.

Under this process there will be seven days of online discussion and debate, with only one opportunity for in-person discussion. While the amendment purports to enfranchise those unable to attend GMs and boost participation in our processes, we believe the change privileges those who have the most leisure time to post their thoughts and opinions online over the course of a seven day period as well as those with the technological and social media savvy to participate effectively in online forums. People with greater levels of social capital — especially social capital dispensed online — will wield disproportionate power. At our in-person meetings we utilize a progressive stack precisely to avoid the dominating of discourse by a person or persons. It will be increasingly difficult to apply this strategy to the discourse of an online platform.

The current class character of the Chapter (predominantly white, middle and upper class, and under forty) already results in many of us defaulting to online spaces for discussion, however unhealthy that exchange might be. Further, current conditions in our Chapter are characterized by sectarian divisions over political ideology and the purpose of the organization. Communication has been tainted by distrust, fear, toxicity, and siloing; the worst examples tending to play themselves out online. The authors of this amendment and many of its supporters have themselves spoken at times of their inability to engage in the online culture of Boston DSA for all of these reasons and more.

Formalizing predominantly online realm of discourse and decision making is likely to ferment greater division in the intake of our individual thoughts and ideas. We are likely to read those posts of the people who we are already inclined to agree with and ignore those of the people who we are inclined to disagree with. Devaluing and marginalizing in-person discussion and debate, as this amendment would do, removes the human interaction that is necessary to build community and trust. Community and trust are pre-conditions to create solidarity and effectively organize. If we are to create a DSA capable of organizing those most harmed by capital, then we need to cultivate robust, healthy, in-person spaces where we learn the potential of our collective power together.

On Democracy

Capitalism in neoliberal context has alienated us from the collective struggle and sought to trivialize our participation in a democracy by reducing us to mere votes. The idea that our voices are being heard because our vote has been cast is precisely the myth of capitalist democracy we socialists should be fighting against. While its importance is undeniable, the use of technology (specifically the internet) can be deeply alienating under late capitalism. Defaulting to online communication as a mechanism to resolve barriers to participation is capitulation to the neoliberal idea of democracy.

The point of a socialist organization is not only to discuss alternatives to capitalism, but to have a way of showing each other how those alternatives look through action. The DSA should be a place that fosters evolving viewpoints. A vote is reduced to an empty ritual in the absence of actual struggle.

How can we challenge neoliberal structures if our own organization depends on them? And under what circumstances would we want to challenge them if they are framed merely as matters of administration? Participation in a socialist organization should mean more than it does within a capitalist democracy. It is critical that we challenge ourselves to find ways to maximize our ability to participate without reducing ourselves to the outcome of a vote. We must strive to never separate a vote from the democratic process of consensus that it symbolizes.

No matter how much we maximize access, having debate and voting in-person means that there will be times when each of us won’t be able to cast our vote of choice. However, if we have any hope of coming to a common understanding through our collective struggle, we must be in rooms together and uphold in-person participation. We should be working together to create more accessible spaces where we discuss, debate, and decide the issues that matter to our organization. As our collective understanding and solidarity grows we will trust each other to be making decisions in the best interests of the whole. Online voting will serve only to deepen our divisions, taking us further away from the solidarity we need to be building if we are to be capable of forming a cohesive movement towards socialism.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade