Against utopian electoralism
Idealizing our political system and its revolutionary potential will lead socialists to failure
Members of New York City DSA recently published a proposal asking their local, and the national organization, to pre-emptively endorse a Bernie Sanders presidential run in 2020. The resolution draft guesses at Sanders’ future political platform and classifies this hypothetical campaign as a “political revolution against the capitalist class.” This kicked off a debate online, culminating in a Jacobin writers’ absurd, revisionist defense of the idea:
The debate also led to hand-wringing over the state of “the left” and its supposed inability to form a cohesive movement, a textbook reaction by non-organizers who share the same martyr complex.
Debates over electoral work have been nonstop since our organization’s explosion in growth after the 2016 presidential election, even though DSA passed a pro-electoral priorities resolution at its most recent convention. It is not a fracturing to bemoan, but a democratic vibrancy to celebrate. It is a sign of a growing actually-left presence in the organization that continually re-examines the political validity of engaging with a broken, bourgeois system — even just as a recruiting tool.
Instead of engaging with a critique of celebrity-worshipping, conciliatory reformism, the right-wing of DSA accuses those to their left of wanting to lose. It’s a bizarre, floundering criticism — one that holds no weight when you consider the hours those members dedicate to organizing in their communities. It’s especially bizarre when the people who claim to really want to win have no connection to a local and think their day job of writing is a material contribution to the movement.
An honest assessment of our capitalist democracy is not ultra-leftism. In fact, it is more pragmatic than an idealistic blueprint to socialism built on the steady gains of progressive candidates. We need to replace utopian electoralism with materialist analysis and continual attempts at revolutionary activity among the working class.
There are two prominent arguments in favor of electoral activity in DSA: 1) we will slowly build a socialist society through reforms enacted by progressive politicians we endorse and 2) DSA will increase in size if we link recruitment to the ascendency of popular candidates.
The first idea, that socialism comes about through peaceful, incremental developments from within a capitalist society, is utopian. It is a tendency that has been dismantled time and again by Marxists throughout history. There are too many examples to give justice to the discourse here, but one of my favorite criticisms of this “insipid” tendency is by Rosa Luxemburg in Reform or Revolution:
Fourier’s scheme of changing, by means of a system of phalansteries, the water of all the seas into tasty lemonade was surely a fantastic idea. But Bernstein, proposing to change the sea of capitalist bitterness into a sea of socialist sweetness, by progressively pouring into it bottles of social reformist lemonade, presents an idea that is merely more insipid but no less fantastic.
The production relations of capitalist society approach more and more the production relations of socialist society. But on the other hand, its political and juridical relations established between capitalist society and socialist society a steadily rising wall. This wall is not overthrown, but is on the contrary strengthened and consolidated by the development of social reforms and the course of democracy. Only the hammer blow of revolution, that is to day, the conquest of political power by the proletariat can break down this wall.
Obviously Marx and Engels criticized utopian socialism in the Communist Manifesto (although the exact utopian tendency addressed here is different than the current topic, there is still relevant application):
Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action; historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones; and the gradual, spontaneous class organisation of the proletariat to an organisation of society especially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans…they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.
The reality of our political system is that state power has been completely entrenched by the capitalist class and is defended by a monstrous militarism. As Lenin wrote in State and Revolution, “once capital has gained possession of [a democratic republic], it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it.” Capitalism will adapt to reforms from within the political system, or it will violently thwart attempts to install actual socialism. One could only understand progressive reforms and/or an increase in socialist politicians as “winning” if one refused to understand the real nature of capitalism, specifically it’s ability to adapt.
Even if we believed their enacted reforms would improve material conditions temporarily, endorsing a presidential candidate is not an act of power — it is an act of conciliation. Several months ago, YDSA leader Sanjeev Rao criticized the inevitable call for a Sanders endorsement, pointing out the inherent weakness in petitioning to a candidate:
Why would Sanders, or any politician, ever listen to our ideological demands when they can win without us? If we do not make our radical, anti-imperialist, socialist politics clear now, why would any politician suddenly adopt them at the drop of the hat after they get elected? What is holding them to even a stated promise? […] I believe the relationship between leftist movements and their figureheads/elected officials should be one of subservience from our candidates. That has never been the case, however. Our country’s political tradition so often seems to assume the inverse; that the success of the individual should be served by the movement under them. Let’s reject this trend for once.
In terms of the second, slightly more pragmatic justification for electoral work, we should critically examine the assumptions behind electorally-linked growth. First, we should question any work that prioritizes growth while DSA still struggles with radicalization and mobilization of its already-present members. There are few, if any, chapter leaders who want more paper members. We need to engage, retain, and activate those we already have. It’s a lot of work, and it will be made more difficult if we insist on measuring our success by apolitical recruitment goals.
The only people who call for growth before developing a substantial plan for increased mobilization are either isolated from chapter activity or have opportunistic tendencies that rely on reporting increased numbers. Growth will happen naturally if we are doing proper political work and demonstrate increased member activity.
There have also been extremely cogent criticisms, from many sources, of the plan to make reliable voters the next target for membership. In a country where former felons, undocumented immigrants, and disenfranchised minorities are not included in our bourgeois electoral system, a Sanders-based growth strategy would do very little to diversify the organization’s base. It would grow the white, liberal side of the organization rather than acknowledge our past issues with homogenous recruitment pools. It would also leave out any group currently alienated by Sanders’ own record on anti-sex work legislation and U.S. imperialism. (His actual political stances are obviously worthy of their own lengthy criticism.)
Critics of a Sanders endorsement, and utopian electoralism generally, have concrete plans for an actual socialist movement. Revolution is not idealistic — it has more basis in historical reality than reform. We want to recruit through coalitions and demonstrated radicalism, and mobilize our membership to the fullest extent before opening the tent flap to more liberals. We want to radicalize unions (trade, tenant, and other) and encourage them to leverage their potential power for revolutionary political change, rather than limiting it to self-interested gains. We want to aid the development of collective power outside of traditional unions, like the self-organized sex workers post-SESTA and the nonworking poor. We are even fighting for certain legislative changes, which don’t actually require personality-based campaigns!
We want to win, but don’t believe molding our organization to fit within a capitalist system is winning. This isn’t ultra-leftism, this is pragmatism based in material analysis. We need to organize with an understanding of the political system as it really is, not as we want it to be. Poor and working people continually attempting organized seizures of power will topple the bourgeois state — not the fantastical blueprint laid out by isolated opportunists.
