What kind of organization for DSA?
Before offering some brief thoughts on our impending election, I want to say that the abusive behavior Jeremy Gong describes in his essay is unacceptable and must stop. I have no personal knowledge of the incidents he mentions, or of other incidents of abusive behavior in our Local, so I am not here to determine guilt. But I think it should be enough to say that if we can’t treat each other with respect especially when we disagree, then this whole socialism thing? Yeah, it won’t work.
People who behave in these ways should be accountable for their actions. However, I am concerned that such abusive behavior not be equated with political disagreement in our Local, or used to characterize a “faction” in opposition to current leaders or to the Bread and Roses slate. Unfortunately, I believe Jeremy’s piece does just that, using incidents of abuse to typify what he sees as a competing vision for DSA he calls the “Inward DSA.” In his telling, the Inward DSA is uninterested or even afraid of mass politics, and if its vision of the organization prevails, we are doomed to wheel-spinning and purity policing. In this Manichaen vision, you are either with Bread and Roses/Momentum and their one true path, or you are against mass politics. Such a view is deeply hubristic and incompatible with an open, democratic, big-tent organization.
In this way, Jeremy’s piece weaponizes abuse he has suffered against anyone who disagrees with his politics. Again, there should be no doubt that abuse is wrong and must have no place in DSA. But using abusive incidents to simplistically divide DSA into those for and against mass politics, defined in a single, specific way (i.e. the B&R way) cannot produce a good faith debate on different ideas in DSA.
I believe an uncompromising and absolute faith in a single perspective is characteristic of the way EBDSA leadership has acted in the past year. The pattern reveals a view of an organization built on a hardcore cadre of primary leadership at the center, surrounded by dedicated supporters, and only vaguely and occasionally accountable to rank and file members. In this model, leaders may take input from the rank and file, but they also may act unilaterally. Leaders should be carefully selected and cultivated, and then empowered to guide the rank and file. Those who are seen to not measure up should be sidelined. Grassroots activity should be carefully confined to priorities decided by leadership and dissent minimized. There should be a commitment to quantifiable “results,” the “real work” that leadership can monitor and evaluate.
To some extent, B&R/Momentum has been honest about their commitment to this hierarchical, centralist cadre model, but I think most rank and file members are unaware of it. B&R would likely reply that this is the only way to build an effective organization, and that the history of more “horizontalist” forms shows this. They might be right! But if that’s the question, let’s debate it openly. Unfortunately, contrary to open discussion, I believe B&R’s model endorses a “by any means necessary” struggle for control of the organization, including being deceptive if it enables them to win. That makes open, good faith discussion nearly impossible.
It seems that the B&R view of what makes DSA a “big tent” is for organized ideological tendencies to engage in gladiatorial combat, a winner to be crowned, and the winner’s view to dominate the organization. But I think there is a better kind of big tent. Instead, we can strive to be open, flexible, and experimental. We can look for new ideas and empower new people. We can listen and learn from many different ideological and historical sources, and try to create new combinations responding to changing circumstances. Contrary to fears that centralization is the only way to make a coherent organization, in the end this approach will make us stronger.
Several people have argued against this kind of organization, calling it a doomed attempt at “prefiguring” a future egalitarian society. The irony of this argument is that whatever organizational model we choose, we are already prefiguring the kind of society we will create. If it is built at all, socialism will be built by the working class through the organizations we make to dismantle capitalism, and the choices we make about how to form and govern those organizations will lead us down certain paths. If we choose a centralist cadre model because we believe it more efficient and effective than others today, then that is the tradeoff we will make at every step.
In the end, as I have argued before, the truth is that we don’t know what will work. I’ll take it a step farther: the approach B&R advocates has been tried before, and it has failed. But wait, there’s more! The approach Unity and Power advocates has also been tried, and it has also failed. In fact, every idea you have for building socialism has been thought and probably tried before, and it hasn’t worked. (I know the history is more complicated, don’t at me.) Fortunately that doesn’t mean we’re doomed; what will decide the success or failure to build a new world will be much, much more complex than what view prevailed in a relatively tiny socialist organization in 2018. Let’s not act like we have all the answers, let’s not allow only one vision to define mass politics, and let’s not equate the success of our preferred slate with a crossroads that will decide the success of DSA. We can create a better organization if hubris doesn’t get in the way.
(Edited to add a note to B&R candidates: if you feel I am mischaracterizing your views, then show me in how you run the organization if you get elected. And to WCUP and all other candidates: we will hold you accountable too.)