Winning the Dirty Break Under Biden: What next for DSA?

The day after voting in the 2020 general election was over, the moderate wing of the Democratic Party immediately went on the offensive. “We need to not ever use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. . . . We lost good members because of that,” said Virginia Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger, attacking the left for what felt—despite Biden winning the presidency—like a lost election for Democrats. 

These were the opening shots marking a new stage in the battle between the capitalist establishment that dominates the Democratic Party and the party’s growing left wing centered around Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Behind these left Democrats is a growing support for socialist ideas in society and the emergence of an organized socialist movement in the form of the Democratic Socialists of America. This new socialist movement has grown over the past five years in a highly contradictory way—mainly through socialist and left-wing candidates running on the ballot line of what former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips described as “history’s second-most enthusiastic capitalist party.”

With Biden taking over as president, these tensions will intensify. It is against this background that a new phase of debate will open up in DSA about how to relate to the Democratic Party, and about what strategy is needed to move toward forming an independent socialist and working-class political party. 

At its 2019 national convention, DSA committed to the aim of eventually building a new working-class party. This is a significant departure from DSA’s traditional policy focused on shifting the Democratic Party to the left, much in the way Bernie Sanders framed the issue during his presidential runs. 

It is highly notable that the tens of thousands of new DSA members took so little time to start moving beyond the strategic vision of Sanders. Now, the forces supporting a “realignment” of the Democratic Party are a minority in DSA and will most likely be further weakened in the years ahead, given how Biden will govern on behalf of the ruling class and will base himself on the conservative political outlook of the Democratic establishment. 

The idea of a “dirty break” strategy currently predominates in DSA. However, the way it is often applied in practice shies away from emphasizing the goal of splitting from the Democratic Party—or even taking any significant steps in this direction. The task of building a new working-class party is often treated as a prospect for the distant future which does not have much bearing on our practical work today. If this approach continues to hold sway, there is a serious risk that DSA’s efforts will contribute in practice to propping up the realignment strategy of Bernie Sanders, AOC, and others rather than to overcoming it.

As committed DSA members ourselves, we believe that as we go forward into the Biden presidency our organization must aim to sharply distinguish itself from realignment-oriented forces. Members’ efforts must be consciously rooted in the goal of building DSA into a powerful, independent force, which can become the backbone of a future party. In our view, DSA should have a consistent focus on laying the groundwork—both ideologically and organizationally—for launching a new party as the class struggle heats up. This needs to be reflected throughout our work, but especially in the candidates and campaigns we run. 

---

What Is the Dirty Break? 

The Clean Break

The classic Marxist position in the US has been to stand wholly apart from the Democratic Party, and to call for workers and the left to abandon it in favor of forming or joining a socialist or broader working-class party instead. This has sometimes been called a “clean break” strategy. There is a clear, simple logic to this position: the thoroughly corporate Democratic Party is a party of, by, and for the capitalist class; workers should fight rather than submit to their class enemies; therefore, socialists should not work inside the Democratic Party or support its candidates. 

The main advantage of a clean break approach is that it offers a clear message that we cannot rely on the Democrats or any political representative of the ruling class. However, recent experience has demonstrated some limitations with this approach. Given the severe weakness of independent working-class forces and low level of class struggle over the last several decades, the newly emerging left and socialist sentiment found its broadest expression not in the form of independent working-class politics but around left-wing campaigns on the Democratic ballot line, such as Bernie Sanders’ two presidential campaigns.

The clean break strategy tended to lead socialists to adopt a rigid tactical approach of opposing—or at least refusing to endorse—Sanders or AOC, which cut them off from effectively seizing a big opportunity for spreading socialist politics among the left-wing voters enthused by their campaigns. While these campaigns are associated with the Democratic Party, it is also critical to recognize that they express a political dynamic which points towards a clash with corporate politics. Socialists should work to win influence among workers and youth supporting Sanders and AOC as part of gathering the necessary forces to be able to lead a successful challenge to the Democratic Party and form a new party.

Realignment

On the other side, there has been the long-standing “realignment” strategy of fighting to turn the Democratic Party itself into a pro-worker party. This has been the approach that Bernie Sanders, AOC, union leaders, and others at the left edge of the Democratic Party have committed themselves to. (While Sanders historically supported building a left-wing alternative to the Democrats and is still formally an independent, during his two Presidential campaigns he argued for a strategy of fighting to reform and eventually take over the Democratic Party.) 

Supporters of realignment argue that the two-party stranglehold on US politics through undemocratic ballot access laws is so strong that it essentially rules out any viable third-party efforts. Therefore, the only option for the left is to attempt to seize hold of the Democratic Party by filling it with left candidates, leaders, and officials who can take it in a different direction. 

This strategy has been the dominant approach on the US left since the 1930s and has repeatedly failed. The main leaders of the labor movement unsuccessfully tried to transform the Democratic Party over decades, while refusing to mobilize their huge resources behind independent working-class politics. A whole section of the civil rights movement entered into the Democratic Party. But rather than transforming the Democratic Party, they themselves were transformed from fighters for radical change into defenders of the status quo. To take one example, Congressman Bobby Rush went from co-founding the Illinois chapter of the Black Panthers to endorsing Joe Biden against Sanders during the 2020 Democratic primaries (after his preferred candidate, Mike Bloomberg, former Republican mayor of New York City, was defeated).

The Dirty Break 

DSA members Meagan Day and Micach Uetricht, in their book Bigger Than Bernie, summarize the dirty break strategy as follows: 

The strategy aims to go beyond the two-party system by going through it. We can use the Democratic Party ballot line strategically, for our own purposes: to wage campaigns that heighten the level of class consciousness in society, encourage people to take militant action in the form of strikes and other kinds of protest activity, and even raise awareness of and interest in socialism.

In the meantime, we can sharpen the contradictions between the Democratic base—the working-class and generally progressive rank-and-file members of the party—and the wealthy Democratic Party funders who don’t want anything to do with the base’s demands… The idea is to agitate within the party, in full view of the party’s base, in order to engage as many people in the discussion as possible, making it harder to ignore. As conflicts between the base and the funders grow, the aim is to build up and cohere a powerful working-class pole, whose growing strength will eventually pose the practical question of a split with the Democrats and the creation of a party of our own. 

Like the clean break strategy, the dirty break acknowledges the thoroughly corporate nature of the Democratic Party and affirms the need for workers to have a party of their own, separate from both capitalist parties. However, it rejects the tactical conclusion that socialists should only run independent of the Democratic Party in all instances. 

Instead, the dirty break strategy argues that socialists can choose the tactic of running on the Democratic ballot line, provided that they maintain a clear socialist political profile and program, raise money independently from working class people, and build independent working-class and left-wing organizations (and not the Democratic Party itself) in the course of the campaign. Its proponents argue that this tactic can serve to build the working-class base for socialist politics that is necessary to carry out a successful break from the Democratic Party and form a new party at the right moment. 

The Party Surrogate Model

Another important aspect of the discussion in DSA is the related, but distinct, concept of the “party surrogate” model, as outlined by Seth Ackerman in his November 2016 Jacobin article, “A Blueprint for a New Party.” Ackerman summarizes his model as follows: 

[…] a national political organization that would have chapters at the state and local levels, a binding program, a leadership accountable to its members, and electoral candidates nominated at all levels throughout the country.

As a nationwide organization, it would have a national educational apparatus, recognized leaders and spokespeople at the national level, and its candidates and other activities would come under a single, nationally recognized label. And, of course, all candidates would be required to adhere to the national platform.

But it would avoid the ballot-line trap. Decisions about how individual candidates appear on the ballot would be made on a case-by-case basis and on pragmatic grounds, depending on the election laws and partisan coloration of the state or district in question. In any given race, the organization could choose to run in major- or minor-party primaries, as nonpartisan independents, or even, theoretically, on the organization’s own ballot line.

The ballot line would thus be regarded as a secondary issue. The organization would base its legal right to exist not on the repressive ballot laws, but on the fundamental rights of freedom of association.

Ackerman leaves the question of whether to ultimately break with the Democratic Party unanswered. In our view, however, the party surrogate model is not only compatible with the dirty break, but has an internal logic that points toward preparing for a break. In the main text of this article, we argue that a party surrogate can and should be seen as a midwife for the birth of a future party, and that building DSA into a party-like formation is currently the most viable path toward making the dirty break a reality. Of course, the situation could change, so we also need to be open to other viable paths that may present themselves for assembling left forces for a break. 

---

DSA has a critically important role to play. With over 85,000 members and growing daily, DSA has given an organized expression to the larger politicization of millions through Sanders’ campaigns and under the influence of other major movements, most notably the recent uprisings for Black lives. At least for now, DSA offers the most promising stepping stone in the direction of politically independent organizing for the left. 

As part of building DSA into a force that can serve as a backbone for a future working-class party, we agree with other dirty-breakers that it is permissible to use the Democratic ballot line and critically support movements and candidates who still have illusions about transforming the Democrats. Critically engaging with left movements and campaigns that emerge in and around the Democratic Party is one important avenue through which we can build the strength of conscious independent left forces within labor and social movements. 

At the same time, we should not wed ourselves to the Democratic ballot line. From the same logic that leads us to accept use of the ballot line—namely, building the forces for a left break by any means available—it also follows, as dirty break proponent Eric Blanc explained during a 2018 debate in Socialist Worker, that “a viable dirty break strategy requires seeking every opportunity possible to build up completely independent electoral campaigns and formations.”

Gains Made

At the center of the growth of the socialist movement over the past period has been a slew of openly socialist candidates running on the Democratic ballot line while attempting to stand out as a distinct force from the corporatist party leadership.

On balance, this has represented a clear step forward for the left in our view. Most significant is the growth of DSA from around 5,000 members in 2015 to more than 85,000 members at the end of its 2020 recruitment drive. This rebirth of DSA and the rise of insurgent left challenges in Democratic Party primaries have been both a reflection of and a contributor to the broader popularization of socialist ideas, left-wing policies, and a basic class outlook that has taken place among millions in US society. The entire process has served to lift the confidence of a whole new layer of left-wing workers and youth by articulating their sentiments, making the popularity of their ideas visible, and raising their sights and expectations.

This has had the reverberating effect of pushing forward and stimulating social struggle, such as in the case of the 2018 teacher strike wave or the recently resurgent Black Lives Matter movement. Many key organizers of the teacher strikes had been politicized in 2015-2016 by the Bernie campaign and/or by joining DSA shortly thereafter.

This collective experience has also helped to expose and sharpen the contradictions between the Democratic establishment and its progressive electoral base. These heightened tensions have increasingly led to conflicts between the wings of the party playing out in front of a wide audience of millions rather than being kept among a narrow circle of party insiders.  

Despite their net positive effect on the movement, however, Sanders and AOC (and many other DSA-backed candidates) are not themselves exemplars of the dirty break strategy. Their campaigns have been explicitly tied to a realignment strategy. 

The fact that the positive aspects have so far been primary does not erase the limitations and dangers inherent in this strategy; both aspects continue to exist side-by-side in constant tension. DSA’s task is not simply to cheerlead for such campaigns, but to engage with them in a dynamic way that also helps their base understand the limits of the realignment strategy and move toward an understanding of the need for a future break and working actively in that direction.

In our view the dirty break strategy is a legitimate approach that can be carried out in a principled way. But to carry it out in a principled fashion requires a clear recognition of the structural opportunist pressures inherent in the entire approach, and a constant political campaign to combat the gravitational pull of drifting into a strategy of working to reform the Democratic Party rather than breaking it up.

To actually reap the full benefits of the dirty break strategy—of assembling and preparing the forces for a break from the Democratic Party—requires consistently carrying out the policy in practice, not just on paper. Despite a growing number of DSA campaigns in which the candidates and chapters are consciously in support of the dirty break strategy, what distinguishes them from realignmentist campaigns are often nearly invisible in practice. There are enormous pressures to tone down disagreements with other Democrats, especially with those on the soft left of the party, and DSA has so far had insufficient political and organizational counterweights in place to effectively stand up to these pressures.

Problems with the Dirty Break Strategy

Even when the dirty break strategy is implemented with consistency, it still brings with it very real dangers and downsides. Most of these stem from the fact that socialists are attempting to serve working-class interests while operating inside a party that is fundamentally structured around the diametrically opposed interests of the enemy class, the capitalists.

An important danger is that socialists end up linking ourselves publicly with the very forces we are attempting to combat. We can find ourselves in the position of inadvertently giving the Democratic Party an illusory left veneer, building its credibility and “brand” rather than exposing its class character. Or, alternatively, the left can find itself (justly or unjustly) being held jointly responsible for the betrayals and attacks on the working class that are carried out by the party. 

Another danger is that the left will often lose in the Democratic primary and then is dragged into funneling its base into supporting the pro-capitalist Democratic candidate (or passively allowing this to happen). Eric Blanc’s 2017 article which coined the term “dirty break” highlighted the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party’s initial refusal to endorse other Democrats. But in practice many DSA candidates, like AOC or Rashida Tlaib, have endorsed standard Democrats.

A large aspect of the attraction of utilizing the Democratic ballot line is that it is an easier path to electing our candidate. However, this desire to run winning campaigns itself exerts a strong pressure toward watering down left policies or lowering our socialist profile. Giving into this electoralist pressure means we will fail to fully utilize our campaigns to raise consciousness and build DSA. 

Finally, there is the risk that we lose focus on the goal of working-class political independence and that the “dirty break” strategy becomes nothing more than a rationalization of an opportunist practice of adapting to the Democratic Party and avoiding taking up difficult fights. 

Historical experience provides a wealth of cautionary tales along these lines. But falling prey to these dangers is not inevitable. The dirty break framework does provide a legitimate set of flexible tactical options that can progress us toward the central strategic aim of a new mass workers’ party. The issue is whether the dirty break is executed in an opportunist or a principled fashion.

We are not just saying this with the hindsight of recent experiences. At the time of the 2015 Sanders campaign the authors of this article, alongside other comrades, helped open a debate in the Marxist left on the tremendous impact of Bernie’s campaign, arguing for critically supporting Bernie while not hiding our own independent, working-class, revolutionary politics.

In 2019, our caucus again strongly supported DSA going all-out for Bernie on an independent socialist basis: 

We in Reform & Revolution believe DSA should actively engage on the field of Bernie’s campaign with the aim of building support for socialist politics. Abstaining from this battle does not strengthen the support for radical politics—it means isolating ourselves from this critical site of struggle and radicalization.

At the same time, we argued that it was necessary for socialists to be politically sharp and push back consciously against opportunist pressures, making sure we were independent from the official campaign not only organizationally but also politically:

The DSA campaign should not limit its politics to what Sanders puts forward. We can make clear our disagreements with Sanders along with specific proposals for what we think Sanders should do differently. Our DSA campaign needs to reflect this with a clear socialist message and demands in our door-knocking materials, rallies, public statements, social media, etc.

The Sanders campaign will be a site of political struggle, a contested terrain. There will inevitably be debate among Sanders activists over the best policies, strategy, and tactics. A moderate wing will argue for Bernie to subordinate everything to electoral considerations, push him to water down his radical demands and socialist profile, and seek to minimize conflict with the Democratic Party establishment.

In contrast, there is a need to bring together the left wing of the Sanders campaign into an organized force with its own clear agenda in order to answer the arguments of the more moderate wing and to have the maximum impact on the direction of the campaign. DSA can play a critical role in giving a lead to these elements.

What Would a Principled Approach to the Dirty Break Look Like?

In our view, there are four components that are essential in any principled implementation of the dirty break strategy: 

A) Building an independent socialist organization. In the present context, that means building DSA on the model of a party surrogate. DSA should democratically decide who to run in what races, and DSA should similarly set the overall political program of the campaign. Candidates should openly promote their DSA membership, and both the candidate and DSA should actively use the campaign to appeal to supporters to join DSA. DSA should also insist that its candidates commit to continue doing this once in office, if elected.

B) Flexible ballot-line tactics but with an unambiguously independent political profile. While using the Democratic ballot line whenever it is advantageous for building independent left forces, candidates need to do the following: 

• Run on a clearly working-class left program. 
• Refuse all corporate donations; build an independent working-class financial base. 
• Openly identify as a socialist opposed to the Democratic Party’s corporate establishment—not just saying this internally within the campaign or DSA, but with a crystal-clear public profile where this is a key theme of the campaign. 
• Openly promote the message that the Democratic Party is dominated by corporate interests, and that this campaign is building a working-class alternative. 
• Argue that we need a working-class political party structured as a mass-membership, democratic organization. 
• Refuse to support corporate Democrats; actively promote challenging as many establishment Democrats as possible. 
• Commit, if elected, to not endorse corporate politicians and to actively campaign for left-wing insurgent challenges to the establishment.   

C) Systematically educate supporters that we are building our forces in preparation for a coming split. This requires DSA plainly hammers away at the following message: The Democratic Party is a big-business party. When we run on its ballot line, this is part of a tactic to build and organize support for left policies, grow DSA, and stimulate social struggle. Sooner or later, a reckoning with the Democratic Party establishment is unavoidable. We are working to build up our forces and win over the left-wing electoral base of the Democratic Party in preparation for a coming split.

D) Seek out viable opportunities to run independent of the Democratic ballot line. There are too many cases today where this tactic is never seriously considered—even in circumstances where the legal barriers are minimal or where the left forces are strong enough to overcome them. For instance, New York state has “fusion voting” laws that would allow DSA candidates to run on their own Socialist ballot line while retaining the ability to campaign for the Democratic Party ballot line as well. Why hasn’t this been taken advantage of? Because the underlying strategy in effect here is not, in reality, employing flexible tactics in a drive to break from the Democrats (i.e. a dirty break) but rather a strategy entirely centered around use of the Democratic ballot line. 

Aside from New York state, clear openings for viable campaigns independent of the Democratic ballot line also exist in other local races across the US. Many cities are entirely dominated by one or the other corporate party; in some cases the other major party doesn’t even bother to field a candidate! Electorally speaking, these circumstances make running outside the Democratic Party not only viable but advantageous. Rather than having to go up against the establishment candidate in a primary, where the electorate is more heavily weighted toward party loyalists, we can skip straight to campaigning among the more working class general electorate. 

Examples of serious campaigns that have been waged on this basis include Nikkita Oliver’s strong 2017 showing in the Seattle mayoral race, DSA member Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez’s successful 2019 independent campaign for Chicago City Council, Bernie Sanders’ mayoral and Congressional campaigns in Vermont, the 2003 near-victory of the Green Party’s Matt Gonzalez for mayor of San Francisco, and Kshama Sawant from Socialist Alternative winning her Seattle City Council seat the last three elections in a row. 

What next for DSA?

In drawing up an overall balance sheet of DSA’s recent experiences with electoral campaigns, the results are mixed. 

On the one hand, DSA has been able to keep up an impressive rate of growth. This is a major achievement that all members should all be proud of, and it constitutes a big step toward laying the basis for a mass socialist organization.

On the other hand, this has largely been done in an opportunist fashion. Despite DSA as a national organization supporting the goal of a new party on paper, in reality it has not actively fostered a clear consciousness around preparing people for a coming break. 

Too often, DSA does not democratically select which candidates will run, nor does it usually decide the program on which those candidates will campaign, nor is there much accountability once those candidates are elected. It is far too common for DSA candidates not to actively promote their affiliation with DSA or encourage their supporters to join DSA. In too many cases, the message supporters are exposed to is one of fixing the problems in the Democratic Party. It is quite rare to hear a DSA candidate openly declare that the Democratic Party as an institution represents big business, and that what is needed is a commitment to growing DSA, laying the foundations for a working-class party.

Of course, the picture is not uniform across the board. Some cases have been better than others. For instance, it appears from what we can tell that the five-member “DSA for the Many” slate elected in 2020 to seats in the New York State Assembly and State Senate had campaigns that included more of these often-missing elements. Their plan to form a distinct socialist caucus in the legislature (as the six DSA members elected in Chicago have also done in their city council) is an excellent step forward as well, to maintain a sharp and clear profile in contrast with the rest of the Democrats in the New York State Legislature.

Going forward, the most immediate tasks all center around politically strengthening DSA to more fully play the role of a party surrogate. At its 2021 National Convention, DSA should seek to adopt a clear political platform. There should be open debate in DSA on the question of what a principled approach to the dirty break looks like and how to strengthen our practical work to better align with our stated goal of working-class political independence from the capitalist parties.

Under a Biden presidency, the limitations of an opportunist policy will assert themselves more powerfully. With a Democrat holding executive power, it will become all the more critical for DSA and socialist candidates to boldly differentiate themselves from the Democratic Party—from Biden’s party. If we are able to successfully stand out as a left opposition to the Biden administration, we will have a big opportunity to grow, perhaps to 150,000 or even 200,000 members and take important steps towards building a Democratic Socialist Party. 

2021 DSA Convention: Let’s unite around a joint resolution for independent left politics

There is an important opportunity in the months ahead for those of us in DSA who want to make sure that our efforts toward a break are not just empty talk. If all DSA members who are serious about fighting for independent left politics were able to come together around a resolution for the 2021 DSA National Convention and campaign for it, we could have an impact in shifting the conversation in DSA. 

Below is one rough sketch of what the action points of a resolution might look like (but we would be more than happy to be outdone by better proposals!): 

1. DSA will launch a campaign to continue its growth with the aim of reaching 150,000 members under a bold slogan like: “Join the Socialists—Toward a Democratic Socialist Party.” DSA will hire two full-time staff to nationally coordinate this campaign for one year and allocate an additional $100,000 to start this campaign. The campaign will also actively raise funds to increase the resources available for this effort. 
2. DSA’s National Electoral Committee is tasked with identifying the 10 most promising 2022 races in which to run DSA candidates independent of the Democratic Party ballot line (DSA candidates may run on the Democratic ballot line in other races, but these will not count toward the 10). These electoral campaigns will be nationally promoted, and all DSA members elected to public office are asked to endorse and actively support.

The key thing is all of us who are serious about a break seek ways to act together to push toward addressing the main needs of the socialist movement in this crucial moment. Contact us (info@reformandrevolution.org) with your comments, proposals, ideas and contributions.