The Democratic Socialists of America is Largely a Reactionary Force in Politics
In the most recent edition of the Democratic Left, the magazine of the Democratic Socialists of America, the National Director, Maria Svart, exposes DSA’s reactionary spirit in the first few paragraphs of the issue. She writes:
“We need also to revive the socialist emphasis on the capitalist class. A recent survey found that more than 70% of people blame politicians, not corporations, for our declining standard of living. That’s dangerous, because it hides who is really to blame - the ones who own the politicians. As we go to press, word has come of the overwhelming rejection of anti-union Proposition A in Missouri, which gives me great hope!”
This quote puts DSA’s failings as a leftist organization in the spotlight. Svart failure to ask how politicians came to be owned, while omitting any acknowledgement of the systemic nature of class domination via the state in the US is illuminating.
When Svart says that “70% of people blame politicians, not corporations, for our declining standard of living” she participates in some interesting contradictions. First, that we are not to trust public opinion. The reader is unable to read even the first page of this issue without being bombarded with grotesque elitism. Svart and DSA as a whole believe that they know better than the average person. The opinions of the public are “dangerous” and are meant to be rectified, corrected, and controlled. It is interesting and alarming that an organization that has Democratic in its very name places such little confidence in public opinion.
Also, Svart is quick to smother the idea that politicians bear responsibility for the declining standard of living in the United States. Instead, she argues, it is corporations that are to be blamed. Svart fails to consider the fact that to be bought requires that one was up for sale to begin with. Who could have put politicians up for sale other than politicians themselves? No politician is being physically coerced to pander to corporations or wealthy individuals. Politicians are more concerned with winning elections than they are about being ethical or representing their constituents. Furthermore, it is not a coincidence that politicians sell themselves to corporations in order to achieve political victory. By claiming that we really should be angry at the corporations who buy off our politicians she is ignoring the fact that it is the political class that made the laws that allowed for such a purchase in the first place. Of course, corporations are disgusting for using their money power to influence policies that keep people from accessing healthcare, destroy the environment, and maintain (and widen) the gap between the working class and the ruling class, but Svart fails to even consider the systemic nature of the buyout of politics. By blaming corporations she makes it appear as though it is a case of a few bad apples; that our politicians mean well, but unfortunately sometimes big and scary corporations force them to pass laws and policies that they do not really want to see; meanwhile governors and senators across the country are pocketing millions of dollars in campaign contributions and receiving a six-figure salary for their ‘service’ to the country. As a socialist, how can Svart not condemn the entire system that allows for such a treason of voters and the working class? She points abstractly to the capitalist class without acknowledging that this is not the case of a few bad apples, that we are operating in a toxic atmosphere, that the political landscape is such that it is impossible to be in a position of power in the US without being wed to campaign funds.
Svart gets one thing right: the defeat of Proposition A in Missouri is a big deal, because it represents voters’ and workers’ discontent with the political system. It is the proverbial ‘fuck you’ to a politics based on control. When voters and everyday people are able to defeat the passing of a law or a bill that will infringe on their ability to live freely, that is a good thing. However, the election of a DSA-endorsed politician does not have the same subversive quality, despite what DSA-ers want to believe. When we glorify the election of a politician we are celebrating the idea that our new master might be a benevolent one. I do not trust any politician to have my best interest in mind, because in my experience all hierarchies lead to an abuse of power (i.e. the ongoing Catholic Church child abuse scandal, the sex abuse cases around glorified coaches like Joe Paterno and the women’s gymnastic team, police brutality, especially against Black folks, etc.). All resistance to power from above should be celebrated by the left, while we must maintain a good deal of skepticism about the exaltation of new masters. In a system as toxic as American politics, we must doubt the ability of anyone who has the egoism to think of themselves as a worthy ruler to rescue us from oppressive hierarchies and class domination.
We ought to take seriously Audre Lorde’s warning that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” DSA and its supporters still think that unions have the potential to be a large part of the revolution, as their latest issue suggests; however, the golden age that unions had in the 20th century is no more. Unions are now a bastion of conservatism that are more focused on maintaining the status quo than building mass revolutionary organizations of workers. Svart closes her introduction to the magazine’s issue by quoting the unionist song “Solidarity Forever” - “We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn / That the union makes us strong.” Unions, too, have been corrupted by the toxic politics in the United States, which is why I prefer the updated version of the song known as the “Illegal Version.” One of my favorite lines of the song is “We’re told of all the progress that democracy has made / But the myth of meritocracy don’t match what we get paid / There’s no hope on a ballot box but on a barricade / For the black bloc makes us strong.” If DSA-ers wish to sound differently than MAGA-ers, who also harken to previous eras in US history as a type of ‘golden age,’ then they must find new ways to resist hierarchies of oppression through direct action, civil disobedience, and beyond.
