Bad Steel: Strengths and Limitations of the Socialist Alternative Model of Movement Building

Right now is a critical time for the socialist movement in the US. Important conversations and debates are taking place everywhere across the country, around how the energy and interest in socialism today can be channeled into a strong and lasting movement. My own organization (Democratic Socialists of America) is in many ways still in a highly formative period. At this critical time, I think it’s worth it to analyze the recent experiance of my former organization, Socialist Alternative. This article is a balance sheet of the experience of SA in 2015 and 2016. This balance sheet I think helps give context to the groundwork that lead to the rapid growth of DSA, which SA largely missed out on.

Many DSA & SA members have questions about what exactly are the differences between these two organizations. What lead to such radically different experiences between two organizations that seem to share an ideology. At the core of these debates, SA and DSA represent two distinct models for organizing. I hope that this article will help give context to that core debate and provide some insight on the way forward.

— -

In the fall of 2013, the US socialist movement focused on a single Seattle city council election. It was an upset victory that few, if any, predicted. A community college professor, member of a little know left organization with a few hundred national members, defeated a 16-year incumbent Democrat in a at-large race. Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative had broken new ground. It was the first time an open, independent socialist had won a municipal election in a major urban center in over 40 years.

On the heels of this historic victory, the U.S. Left set to work analyzing the campaign. What made it successful? How can it be replicated? Many tried to make the case that it had something to do with Seattle itself. That maybe something was in the water there that made people turn toward an insurgent socialist. But it was not luck, chance, or even a widescale dumping of copies of the Jacobin Magazine into water reclamation centers around the city of Seattle that led to this. It was strategy that relied on the social power of working people where it existed.

The successes of Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative in Seattle have been discussed quite a bit over the last few years, though they have been overshadowed a bit since the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. But now that socialists are moving into a period of prolonged struggle where serious tactical and strategic questions will be at the forefront of our work, it’s worth examining why SA’s turn toward mass tactics in Seattle was so successful, and why subsequently turning back to a marginal model during the Sanders era was such a failure.

The context of their work in Seattle had a powerful effect on the campaign itself. In 2013, the Fight for $15 was a newer phenomenon. Just a few months earlier Working Washington, a coalition lead by SEIU, won a hard fought battle to get a $15/hr minimum wage initiative on the ballot in the city of SeaTac. Sawant was able to position herself as an extension of this high-profile initiative by making $15 the central demand of her campaign. Sawant and Socialist Alternative were able to frame their campaign in the context of this broader progressive movement.

In a country where most municipal races center around patching up roads and business friendly tax reform, a candidate that can draw on the movements taking shape in workplaces and communities into a campaign for City Hall is significant. This same strategy built the Richmond Progressive Alliance in California since 2006 and swept revolutionary socialist Chokwe Lumumba into office as Mayor of Jackson, Mississippi as a Democrat in 2013. SA drew heavily from this strategy of tying electoral campaigns into broader social and economic justice movements. When Left organizations independent from the establishment are able to tap into a larger progressive framework it can be an incredibly potent combination.

It’s true that there were some unique features in the Seattle election that favored a potential independent candidate. In an article published just weeks after their victory, Socialist Alternative wrote that, “Seattle has been controlled by Democrats for decades, and there was no Republican challenger in this race. Without any of the pressures of “lesser-evilism,” this openly socialist campaign has become a pole of attraction for many people disillusioned with the Democratic Party.” A one party city, with a non-partisan election, was certainly a factor in giving room to their message and campaign as an independent. But socialists would agree that this alone is not enough to guarantee success.

It would be an exaggeration to say that the Seattle campaign was something akin to a workers revolt against any and all things Democratic Party, as SA’s analysis would imply. Many DP leaders and institutions supported their campaign, even Daniel Norton, former King County Democratic Party chair was among the party leaders who endorsed Sawant. It was even noted in Stranger magazine that “the fascinating thing about this race is how much quiet support Sawant has garnered from Democratic Party activists — and yes, even a few elected officials” and that “Sawant should have little trouble working with Democrats to help push forward her agenda.”

This later proved itself to be the case. Sawant and Socialist Alternative were able to build connections with local labor leaders in SEIU and UNITE HERE among many others. They operated within a coalition for a strong progressive voice with councilors like Larry Gossett, not only around 15, but other progressive initiatives such as affordable housing. Correctly, they deliberately avoided being isolated by the Democratic Party by overlapping their base with theirs by launching a new organization called 15 Now and choosing their allies and relationships strategically. They were able to effectively enfranchised these centers for progressive power while not allowing themselves to be limited by them.

It would also be an exaggeration to take up the common far left argument of the time that SA was simply acting as left cover for the Democratic Party by taking up a mass model for political action. In fact Socialist Alternative was able to remain effectively independent from ruling class centers of power in Seattle. Socialist Alternative took no money from big business in that campaign and Sawant herself has served for four years on a prevailing wage salary. They never dissolved their organization or structures or merged them in any meaningful way with the power centers of the billionaire class. They remained organizationally independent, while merging politically with the broader progressive movement.

It was this combination of organizational independence, tactical flexibility, with an emphasis on mobilizing the mass centers of working class political action that lead to the success of Sawant and Socialist Alternative. They were able to be a strong left voice both inside and outside the existing progressive movement. This demonstrates that in Seattle Socialist Alternative understands in practice, if not yet in theory, that a successful socialist movement must engage with existing mass organizations while maintaining an organizational independence that allows them to remain connected to the demands of ongoing struggles and not the political establishment alone.

In their analysis following the Seattle struggle, Socialist Alternative showed that either they did not fully recognize the broader process going on around them at that time or simply wished to downplay it in favor of their emphasizing own role. Consistently they have emphasised that the key to victory for socialists is the presence of protests and organizational independence. These elements were certainly critical, but a balance sheet of their own work does not reflect the conclusion that these elements alone divorced from engagement in mass centers of working class power could be successful.

After the election in 2013, Socialist Alternative launched 15 Now as a national organization, with chapters in over a dozen cities. But it isn’t clear that 15 Now was actually effective anywhere other than Seattle. The only exception to this is Minneapolis where after numerous obstacles and years of dedicated work, 15 was passed with Socialist Alternative playing a prominent role in this work.

But even in Minneapolis, that success was the product of a broad coalition around 15 involving unions and community organizations that predated 15 Now by many years. When Socialist Alternative relied on protests and organizational independence alone, and divorced the demand for 15 from the mass framework that would make it viable, it did not produce anything of lasting substance.

There were a few factors that made 15 Now more successful in places like Seattle and Minneapolis than other cities like New York or Boston. In Seattle there was the obvious factor of a sitting councilwoman leading the campaign. But it went further than that. In both cities there were openings on the city council and SA had working relationships with sitting councilors in both cases. There was also a commitment on the part of labor locally toward bringing $15 forward legislatively, and again SA had relationships with labor in both cases.

By trying to spread 15 Now to every city where they had some membership, Socialist Alternative’s work is able to clearly highlight the differences between a mass model and a marginal model for movement building. In Seattle where 15 Now was an extension of relationships and campaigns that already existed, tied to mass organizations, it took the shape of a real campaign. Where it was launched without these essential components, it was basically a slogan, disconnected and isolated from any potential to actually win. Unfortunately, SA took up a similar method during the Bernie Sanders campaign to similar effect.

— -

When Sanders first declared his candidacy, all the factors that made Seattle so successful seemed to be at play. A social and economic justice program tied to an existing mass movement, spearheaded by an open socialist, drawing a clear line between working class political action and the neoliberal leadership of the Democratic Party. It appeared to be just the sort of campaign an organization that had seen the value of mass tactics would leap into. But when Sanders entered the scene, they took no clear position on whether they felt socialists and progressives should actually campaign or even vote for Sanders. Though there has been some confusion around what position they took, in truth they limited themselves to commentary from the sidelines and would not bring themselves to endorse Sanders.

Instead of being involved in the campaign, they saw their role as to “ provide the link to building mass movements and structures independent of the Democratic Party”. A major reason for this turn was Sander’s decision to run as a Democrat, a tactic Socialist Alternative has consistently opposed and one they have been able to avoid grappling with by running for election only in nonpartisan races in dominantly Democratic Party controlled cities.

Socialist Alternative spent most of 2015 focusing on Sawant’s re-election campaign in Seattle, commenting on the Sanders campaign in their newspaper while limiting their engagement to one off speaking events next to Sanders. Once the Seattle re-election campaign had been put away, they launched a new national campaign called #Movement4Bernie (sic) in January 2016.

#Movement4Bernie was a national initiative launched by SA with the goal of creating “a bold appeal for Sanders supporters to self-organize into a real mass movement” to win the political revolution that Sanders had called for but, in their view, could not win. It was an attempt to have some level of engagement in the Sanders campaign under a formation they could control while trying to remain rigid on the question of the Democratic Party ballot line. They turned their emphasis to talk about struggle and the need for a mass movement. But to what degree #Movement4Bernie added any value to the struggle that was already going on or was a real mass organization capable of leading the political revolution further than Sanders was willing to take it isn’t clear.

If you scan their materials or look at their website (now under the name “Movement for the 99%”) you can’t find any labor unions or community organizations that have endorsed the campaign. You can’t find any progressive politicians who have rallied around the call. You can’t tell how this organization related to the existing Sanders campaign. You can’t even find a clear leadership structure that would allow working people to influence and guide the organization from the grassroots. Aside from an email list and a donate button, you can’t find anything that gives the appearance of a mass organization at all.

The tactic of launching a paper organization and pretending that the mass organizations engaged in that same struggle don’t even exist is a hallmark of this marginal model. But the important thing for socialists in this campaign was not simply its slogans, its demands, or its candidate, though these all played an important role. What was important was how the campaign was acting upon the workers movement and developing the organizational and political cohesion of working people to affect change. Sanders was organizing sections of the Democratic Party base along class lines. It was important for socialists to play a role in that process from within it if they were to have any hope of affecting it. It did not come down to a question of names, titles, and slogans, but an appraisal of the material forces at work in that process.

In the run up to the Democratic primaries, Socialist Alternative wrote that, “from a socialist standpoint, strengthening the struggles for economic and social justice will be more important than who is elected president in 2016.” But these factors weren’t working in opposition to each other as Socialist Alternative’s analysis has consistently implied. Developments around the election had a very obvious effect on the level of organization within the socialist movement today.

Formations like People for Bernie and Labor for Bernie sprang up as a result of the campaign, giving expression and an independent character to the fault lines being drawn between Sanders and Clinton. This gave way to organizations, structures, and networks that drew people together in a variety of fields on a class basis. These organizations formed around the campaign, and engaged with it, and still exist now in one form or another. This is true for socialist organizations as well. Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) endorsed Sanders early on and was highly involved in independently supporting the Sanders campaign in a variety of ways. Now they are experiencing explosive growth unique among socialist groups in the US.

It would be a mistake to to take up the Socialist Alternative method of analyzing events along the lines of names, titles, and slogans. DSA grew, and is growing, precisely because they were able to remain flexible and focus on the actual character of the campaign. This allowed them to play a role in that campaign from within it. When the Sanders campaign folded these formations and people didn’t go anywhere. Many community organizations, campus groups, and even to a degree national organizations around Sanders transferred their affiliation to Democratic Socialists of America as a clear next step in fighting for the political revolution and opposing the Trump agenda. This was in large part the basis for their growth.

And this is the key difference. Both DSA and Socialist Alternative remained organizationally independent from the Democratic Party. However one organization presented a clear vision from within the campaign as it existed, and as a result many of the organic organization that grew out of the Sanders phenomenon broke naturally with the Democratic Primary campaign and joined that socialist formation as the clear next step in the struggle. Another organization used the tremendous potential around them to launch a paper campaign pointing to theoretical scenarios, effectively isolated from everything that was going on, hoping that the right slogan would be enough to steer the working class away from Democratic Party though they had no mechanisms to effectively do that. This is an important distinction between the mass model and the marginal.

— -

The process by which socialists will ultimately be able to develop a political alternative is complicated. But drawing out the lessons of the last several years can help point us to what a successful strategy can look like. Rather than launching initiatives from above like a parachute hoping to find solid ground, a successful socialist organization must focus first on connecting their work to the existing struggles within the workers movement. This can allow socialists to directly affect the organizational capacity of working people which is the material basis for successful socialist campaigns.

But this is not to say that socialists should simply be an auxiliary to the workers movement and not endeavour to play a leading role within it. We cannot ignore the fact that often time struggles will break out organically only later to be overtaken by forces that want to prevent these struggles from taking on a socialist character. Socialists must fight for these struggles to be lead and controlled by the rank-and-file and the grassroots, and fight for a socialist program of action.

This is why our vision of a socialist society matters. Socialists will not be a viable independent force in the workers movement if we are not able to articulate clearly what we want to achieve. We have to work to learn the skills and ideas that will make us successful and seek clarity within our organizations about what we view as our goals. There is no shortcut to this process either. Clarity can really only be achieved by promoting open democratic discussion and development at every level of an organization. Though many organizations, including many self-proclaimed socialists, preferto restrict these discussions to the top, with pro forma discussion at the grassroots, socialists should instead fight for methods that will develop an informed and active membership, united around some common goals. We must develop leaders in our own organizations if we hope to in turn lead.

When we find ourselves engaged in these campaigns we should fight clearly for class independence and for a socialist program. This means maintaining and expanding organizations that draw their support, financially and structurally, from working people and their mass organizations. We should fight too for a clear socialist program. Not a program in the sense of a laundry list of chemically pure demands, but a socialist program of action, a method that draws on the material forces that exist and seeks to draw even more sectors of our class into it.

These lessons are especially true when it comes to labor. The labor movement is still in the throes of a crisis, one that will be accelerated if Trump pushes through national right to work legislation in the coming year. Combined with the fact that labor will be shrinking their organizing infrastructure in the coming year, future struggles may come to depend on the grassroots engagement that socialists can help shape.

Socialists should lead from the front in this process. Rank and file union activists have not waited around for socialists to initiate this work, and as a result much of the organic material is already there. If we hope to raise the horizons of what is possible with a mass model, then confronting the challenges of within labor is critical to this. There are key sectors of the labor movement that have traditionally been strongholds for this conservative leadership, and those leaders must be challenged from the floor. Socialists must play a role in that process from within it, and fight to initiate or develop labor’s left pole.

This work is often protracted, requiring stamina and patience, but that does not change the fact that it is necessary. It serves nothing to simply comment on the events in labor from the sidelines, throwing up theoretical scenarios about how things could be different if we had a Labor Party. We need a clear and concrete plan to achieve it, and the patience and stamina to see it through.

Beyond labor, there is no shortage of organizations and campaigns seeking to make material gains for workers and are helping to build the cohesion of working people to move into political action. It makes no tactical sense to take up the attitude of the marginal model to view our own organization alone as the only true and legitimate organization for workers in struggle. Our task as socialist is to be actively engaged in these campaigns in real life, not in theory. This will be the basis for successful socialist action.

These lessons are more important to socialists today than ever. Still now there are many organizations arguing for a marginal model, one that relies on the right slogans as a shortcut to building the fighting strength of working people against capital. These shortcuts should be rejected, and we must focus on the real principles that are at the center of our work.

There never was a good knife made from bad steel, or so the saying goes. The future of the socialist project in which we are all taking part will be hinged on the methods that we use to grow the power of socialist ideas. There is plenty of space to have those debates, in fact we must have those debates. Because above all else, socialists must present a clear vision of what we want to build.

But that vision will not be constructed in isolated echo chambers on the margins of the movement. They will be forged at the center of it, where it is difficult and challenging but ultimately the most effective. Where the boundaries of socialist ideas are not fixed on formulas from the mists of time, but on the boundless courage and imagination of working people. We must ask ourselves whether we as socialists are willing to earn that place in history with methods that will bring us there. The success or failure of our work in the years to come will rest on that question.