by Breaking from the Dirty Break and Sliding Toward Campism
We continue here with Part Two of our political review of DSA’s recent National Convention. Part One provided a general overview of the convention and analyzed the new political platform that was adopted. Part Three, which will be published later this week, will assess DSA’s democracy, analyze its stalling growth so far under Biden, and draw some overall conclusions about the state of DSA.
Electoral strategy was a central debate at the convention, culminating in the National Electoral Committee resolution being overwhelmingly adopted by a 77% vote. This represented a shift to the right, pulling back from the strategy of a “dirty break” with the Democratic Party adopted at the previous DSA convention.
There is a broad consensus in DSA that the Democratic Party is our enemy and that we need a mass-membership working-class party, but there are strong disagreements over how to get there. A majority believes the road to a workers’ party requires focusing on building DSA into a party-like organization while using the Democratic Party ballot line. A left-wing minority has a higher horizon, emphasizing that DSA should take advantage of existing opportunities to work toward forming an independent workers’ party and prepare for a mass break from the Democratic Party.
This is not just an abstract disagreement about distant goals; it has a real bearing on DSA’s immediate practice. The majority’s strategy results in DSA candidates having a low socialist public profile, arguing for reforming the Democratic Party, and avoiding bold appeals to their supporters to join DSA.
In contrast, the left wing wants DSA candidates to have a high socialist profile, publicly argue that the Democratic Party is dominated by capitalist interests, and openly appeal to supporters to join DSA as a step toward a new party.
The majority approach means running almost exclusively on the Democratic ballot line, whereas the left believes DSA should run independently where viable (and on the Democratic ballot line where it’s advantageous).
The electoral resolution adopted by the 2019 convention stated “DSA is committed to building political organization independent of the Democratic Party and their capitalist donors… In the longer term, our goal is to form an independent working-class party, but for now this does not rule out DSA-endorsed candidates running tactically on the Democratic Party ballot line.” The conscious support for the goal of an independent working-class party was underlined by the convention voting down an amendment to remove the goal of a workers party.
In contrast, the 2021 electoral resolution states “DSA will continue its successful approach of tactically contesting partisan elections on the Democratic ballot line while building power independent of the Democratic party apparatus.” This suggests that DSA candidates should run exclusively as Democrats, whereas the 2019 resolution was open to running on different ballot lines. The 2021 resolution also de-emphasizes the goal of an independent working-class party compared with the 2019 resolution.
This shift to the right is, in reality, a formalization of DSA’s recent practice. Despite the stated goals of the 2019 convention, DSA has largely failed to carry out key aspects of the dirty break strategy on the ground. The vast majority of DSA candidates are currently running as Democrats, whereas in 2017 sixty percent ran as independent or Green Party candidates. Most DSA candidates do not publicly highlight that they are socialists (though the capitalist media often does). Most candidates advocate reforming the Democratic Party and do not boldly ask supporters to join DSA.
The advocates of the majority approach argue that running socialists on the Democratic ballot line has proven to result in electoral victories which have built the socialist movement. We accept that DSA should run candidates on the Democratic ballot line where that tactic provides advantages. But we are against getting locked into being a pressure group on the Democratic Party and missing existing opportunities to build the socialist movement and independent political power. We must prepare for an inevitable showdown between the left and the capitalist forces that dominate the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately the format of the convention meant that these important controversial issues were debated in a narrow framework of only a few speakers for and against specific resolutions and amendments. Given the importance of our electoral work and the differences that exist, it would have been more productive to start with a general discussion assessing DSA’s electoral work overall, providing space for delegates to motivate different political approaches, before moving on to debating specific resolutions. This format would be more educational and allow for more politically informed decisions on the resolutions and amendments.
The strongest showing for the left-wing strategy described above was when 43% of delegates voted for Amendment #5 which was proposed by individual members of the Bread & Roses caucus. (Bread & Roses did not endorse the amendment; a majority of their caucus supported it, but a minority opposed it).
The vote of 43% of delegates for a strong dirty break amendment represents a significant base of support for the left to build on. Besides Bread & Roses, other organized forces supporting a more left-wing policy were Reform & Revolution, Tempest, Emerge, Red Star, Marxist Unity Slate, and Socialist Alternative. But within this wing there were political differences.
On the one side there are those, such as Reform & Revolution and the left wing of Bread & Roses, who are pushing for DSA to actually carry out a dirty break strategy. Reform & Revolution believes this is an approach that allows DSA to actively engage in—and lead at times—the electoral struggles that left-wing workers are following, while helping them move toward breaking from the Democrats and forming an independent party.
On the other side were those, such as Tempest and Socialist Alternative, who argue for a more rapid “clean break” and/or inflexible criteria that would have the effect of not allowing DSA to endorse candidates like AOC or Bernie Sanders. In our view, these approaches underestimate the positive role that Sanders and AOC are playing and the advantages for DSA of boldly endorsing them despite their political weaknesses. We agree with the goal of breaking with the Democratic Party, but we believe these approaches are an ineffective way to achieve it. They do not sufficiently engage with how to help the majority of DSA and radicalizing workers draw the conclusion that we must break with the Democrats.
Despite the convention’s shift to the right on the dirty break, the electoral resolution that passed had many strengths which would mark an important step forward if carried out. It stressed building DSA into a party-like organization, stating that DSA commits to:
building a working-class party: a mass democratic political organization capable of taking state power with a strategy for social transformation… a strategy of class-struggle elections that polarize the working-class majority against the ruling-class elite… electing socialists who will act as organizers in office and use their offices to grow our movement, contest for state power, and develop working class self-organization and activity… electing socialists who will deliberate with DSA members and act in concert with DSA to carry out a member-driven political and legislative strategy.
International Debate
Another major convention debate was about DSA’s international policy. In a continuation of DSA’s left-ward turn since it broke with the deeply conservative Socialist International in 2017, the convention was united in opposition to US imperialism. The DSA platform enshrines this with excellent anti-imperialist demands, including:
- Dramatically slash US military spending
- Close all US foreign military bases
- Demilitarize the border and grant immediate amnesty for all immigrants
- No new Cold War with China
- Stop using economic sanctions to punish countries, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran, that dare to act independently of the US
However, sharp disagreement exists over how DSA relates to the dominant left parties and governments in the global south. In the run-up to the convention, a controversy erupted over a trip by DSA’s International Committee to Venezuela. Again, the format of the convention did not allow for a direct political debate on this, or on DSA’s overall approach to internationalism, but these issues nevertheless bubbled up in various ways.
The main international resolution (#14) represented the political approach of the majority of DSA’s International Committee. It passed with the support of 65% of delegates, committing DSA to apply for membership in the São Paulo Forum and prioritize establishing relationships with mass left parties in Latin America.
While we support the anti-imperialist aspects of the resolution, we believe the resolution reinforced the practice of DSA uncritically supporting these parties even when they impose austerity, adopt right-wing stances on social issues, use undemocratic repression against left activists, or carry out colonial occupations.
For example, we agreed with the DSA delegation observing Peru’s elections and welcoming the victory of the radical left candidate Pedro Castillo. However, it was unfortunate that DSA’s statement did not also raise, in a respectful and proportional manner, its solidarity with the feminist and LGBT+ movements in Peru, given Castillo’s conservative stances on these issues.
Some in DSA disagree, arguing that DSA should not impose the US left’s social values on Peruvian realities. There is no doubt that mass consciousness and cultural traditions vary between Peru and the US, and that DSA must be respectful of these differences. As internationalists we want to engage in a dialogue with the Peruvian left to learn from each other and together find the best program to defeat global capitalism. As part of that exchange DSA has a responsibility to honestly raise its principles and disagreements we have with international comrades. We need to also remember that Peru (like all countries) is not a monolith, and it has feminist and LGBT+ movements.
The recent DSA delegation to a left conference in Venezuela was another more concerning example. We supported DSA attending as a platform to speak out against US sanctions and to learn from Latin American left-wing parties. But we opposed the DSA delegation publicly supporting Maduro and the Venezuelan government as examples of “socialism,” given their corruption and repression of workers and left activists. Rather than attending parties with “socialists” in power, the DSA delegation should have met with Venezuelan trade union leaders who have been part of the left opposition to Maduro.
Nonetheless, the majority of delegates voted for the international resolution based on a desire to stand in solidarity with the left around the world. Given that many delegates were not familiar with the debates within the Latin American left, limiting DSA’s role to supporting the main left parties appeared to many to be a more straightforward position.
While understandable, we think this is short-sighted. It was precisely this kind of thinking that led much of the radical left to uncritically support “communist” regimes in the former Soviet bloc as “actually existing socialism.” This identification of Stalinism with “real socialism” bore bitter fruit by helping to discredit socialism, such as when the USSR crushed worker uprisings for socialist democracy in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. But the biggest impact was how it assisted the ruling class internationally in cementing the idea that “there is no alternative” to capitalism following the collapse of Stalinism in 1989, resulting in an enormous ideological disorientation of the left.
In contrast, Trotskyists defended the progressive aspects of Stalinist regimes (such as the planned economy and their independence from imperialism) but opposed the totalitarian bureaucracies that ruled over the workers. They stood for political revolutions to establish socialist democracy rather than restoring capitalism. And when these states collapsed in 1989, Trotskyists argued it was a failure of Stalinism, not socialism.
The politics of the leaders promoting the international resolution was a soft form of “campism” — the simplistic idea that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and are therefore in “our camp.” They argue that the most radical thing US socialists can do is align with the biggest forces in conflict with US imperialism, especially Latin American parties who identify as socialist or communist.
But the measure of how radical a party is is not determined by what it labels itself or how extreme its rhetoric is. Instead, it must be based on an evaluation of its actual practice.
When the Brazilian Workers’ Party (PT) government led a UN “peacekeeping” force in Haiti from 2004 to 2017, it was carrying out a colonial occupation, which principled anti-imperialists opposed. Support the PT leadership, regardless of intentions, had the impact of reinforcing a right-wing position. Many Haitian leftists and the radical left in Brazil, such as the socialist party PSOL, were strongly against this occupation of Haiti. In such situations DSA should politically support serious left forces most aligned with our principles, rather than aligning with the PT by virtue of it being the largest left-of-center party.
While the majority of delegates perceived Resolution #14 to be a step toward a more radical anti-imperialism, in practice it will mean a shift to the right by avoiding left criticisms of the PT, Maduro, and Castillo, while undermining US solidarity efforts with far healthier left opposition working-class forces within those countries.
An aspect of the majority outlook was a non-Marxist understanding of internationalism that is limited to general expressions of solidarity with those perceived to be leading anti-imperialist struggles. It purports to avoid taking political stances on controversial debates in other countries, but in practice it actually reinforces the dominant reformist leaders against their left opposition (such as the Brazilian PT against PSOL).
Marxist internationalism definitely entails solidarity with the most oppressed, but also requires us to develop an international program through engaging in dialogue and debate with our comrades internationally about how to best overthrow global capitalism.
In the course of the convention debate there was a convergence of different forces in DSA arguing for an internationalist policy based on Marxist politics. These forces, including Bread & Roses, Tempest, and Reform & Revolution, spoke against Resolution #14, which 35% of the delegates voted against. Hopefully going forward these trends can work more closely together to build on this significant base of support.
However, there are also disagreements within this wing. The Marxist internationalism that Reform & Revolution supports is not a “third camp” position (articulated historically by figures like Max Shachtman and more recently by comrades from the ISO tradition). For example, while we agree with these comrades’ support for working-class struggles for democracy in Cuba, we think it is vital to anchor that policy in the framework of defending the planned economy and other social gains of the Cuban revolution and fully opposing efforts to restore capitalism.
This article is Part Two of a three-part series on ReformAndRevolution.org reviewing the DSA National Convention. Part One provided a general overview of the convention and analyzed the new political platform that was adopted. Part Three will assess DSA’s democracy, analyze its stalling growth so far under Biden, and draw some overall conclusions about the state of DSA.
The authors, Philip Locker and Ramy Khalil, were elected delegates to DSA’s National Convention, and they are members of DSA’s Reform & Revolution caucus. They were central leaders in 15 Now and Kshama Sawant’s initial election and re-election campaigns to Seattle City Council.
