DSA Convention: A Movement on the March — but Serious Challenges Ahead

DSA held a successful National Convention from July 30 to August 8. Running an online convention democratically with 1,240 delegates was no small feat. While at times frustrating and contentious, the convention nevertheless highlighted the huge gains made by the socialist movement in the epicenter of global capitalism.

By Ramy Khalil and Philip Locker

With 94,000 dues-paying members — organized in 207 chapters, 35 Organizing Committees, and 142 chapters of Young Democratic Socialists of America — DSA’s rapid growth into a semi-mass organization represents a major step forward for the US left.

The convention exemplified the key strengths of DSA. First, the debates at the convention vividly demonstrated DSA’s democratic character. Second, the convention voted to codify DSA’s radical socialist vision — albeit a reformist one — in the form of a new platform. This is a huge advance after decades of retreat from the dreaded “s-word” on the left, and a significant step beyond Bernie Sanders’ limited portrayal of socialism. Third, the convention agenda spoke to DSA’s strength of combining electoral activity with grassroots movement-building.

At the same time, the convention showed that DSA has significant political and organizational weaknesses, as would be expected in an organization that was basically refounded only five years ago. Sharp tensions erupted throughout the convention, pointing to DSA’s instability and the political challenge of uniting its big tent in outward-facing struggles that can activate large numbers of working people.

The convention agreed to prioritize national campaigns for a Green New Deal, the PRO Act, voting rights, and Medicare for All. It also adopted strategic resolutions that will deepen DSA’s involvement in elections and the labor, anti-racist, immigrant rights, and housing justice movements. The convention also adopted some measures to better organize DSA and use the enormous energy of its members more effectively.

Significant political debates took place about DSA’s approach to the Democratic Party and to internationalism. In both instances we believe the convention chose the more opportunist course, in the sense of watering down an independent working-class position to accommodate more popular ideas in society. This is just a taste of the reformist pressures to come if DSA grows into a mass organization. However, the existence of a significant opposition on these issues (43 percent and 35 percent in the key votes) also showed the potential for building a strong Marxist wing of DSA.

Given the highly favorable, though complicated, political climate for building the socialist movement currently in the US, DSA is well positioned to develop further. But the challenges on display at the convention are also a warning sign that DSA could run into a crisis, especially if the objective political situation takes a turn for the worse.

Forming a larger layer of experienced organizers and sinking roots in the working class will help stabilize DSA. But this is connected with the challenge of DSA charting a political course that avoids opportunism on the one hand, and on the other hand self-marginalization (which Marxists call “ultra-leftism”).

Opportunist pressures can take various forms, from being co-opted by the Democratic Party to watering down a socialist message to cheerlead the politics that often dominate mass movements these days.

The shift to the right is, in reality, a formalization of DSA’s recent practice.

On the other hand, the weakness of the left and its isolation from the working class results in strong ultra-left impulses in DSA — radical posturing that avoids the challenge of engaging in mass work in a principled way. For example, refusing to participate in capitalist elections out of fear that socialist candidates will eventually be co-opted would cut DSA off from valuable opportunities to popularize transformative policies like the Green New Deal. Instead, DSA needs to develop the political capacity to take advantage of these opportunities while holding elected socialist representatives accountable to DSA’s new platform.

Successfully navigating the twin pitfalls of opportunism and ultra-leftism will require building up strong support for Marxist politics in DSA to ensure that the organization can engage in mass work while doing so in a principled fashion.

---

The Missing Discussion: Socialist Resistance Under Biden

A crucial question was not discussed at DSA’s convention: What are the tasks of socialists under the Biden administration?

Right-wing Democrats like Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are trying to block or whittle down Biden´s $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package. Their priority is passing the limited bipartisan infrastructure bill which is supported by corporate America.

The budget reconciliation bill would be the largest expansion of social welfare in the US in decades. It includes important environmental programs, monthly child support payments, universal preschool, free community college, paid family leave, expansion of Medicare, and more — all paid for by taxing the rich. This would significantly benefit tens of millions of working people and is the best chance of stopping the Republicans from taking the House and/or Senate in 2022.
Biden and the wing of the ruling class he leads believe for now their interests are best served by reforms that try to rehabilitate the tattered legitimacy of their system and institutions. Alarmed by the growth of left and right-wing populism in the form of Sanders and Trump, they hope to alleviate the huge discontent in society by trying to reduce economic and racial inequality. They also need to address the economic crisis unleashed by COVID-19, as well as a growing challenge from China to US imperialism. While promoting reforms from above that would temporarily improve conditions for working people in the US, their overriding priority is to protect the capitalist system.

On the basis of clearly understanding their pro-capitalist strategy, DSA should support every progressive proposal from Biden and the Democrats, while calling them out whenever they refuse to do whatever it takes to overcome the obstruction of Republicans and right-wing Democrats. We also need to explain how their measures are insufficient and make the case for fundamental socialist change.

The battle over $4 trillion of human and physical infrastructure is the time to “force the vote.”
But most of all we should emphasize the need for working people to take its fate into its own hands through mass action and building its own independent organizations. The strategic task of the radical left is promoting demands and tactics that help bring workers and oppressed people into active struggle, and that raise their level of consciousness and organization.

Mobilize and Force the Vote

A promising example of the way forward was when Congresswoman Cori Bush led an encampment on the Capitol steps in early August demanding an extension of the eviction moratorium. Cori Bush rejected claims by Biden and Pelosi that nothing could be done. Quickly, Biden was forced to extend the eviction moratorium in 90 percent of the country (though it was later struck down by the Supreme Court).
Earlier this year there was a debate on the left about whether the Squad should “force the vote.” This meant they would refuse to support Pelosi’s reelection as Speaker of the House unless she made concessions, such as allowing a floor vote on Medicare for All. AOC and others argued against this, saying they would use their leverage at a better time. What better time is there than now with this $4 trillion battle?
But congressional maneuvers by themselves will not be enough. To win lasting, fundamental change we need a massive mobilization from below. Let’s fight for a bold Green New Deal, putting maximum pressure on the Democrats. This should include the threat of running left-wing challengers in 2022 against all those Democrats who fail to deliver. This should be linked to building mass movements of the multiracial working class.
The unfolding infrastructure battle is the time to force a vote, to mobilize from below, and build toward a movement-oriented democratic socialist party.

---

DSA’s Composition

DSA exploded from 6,000 members in 2016 to 55,000 members at the time of its 2019 convention. In 2020 DSA surged to 95,000 members as a result of the Bernie Sanders campaign, the COVID-19 radicalization, the mass BLM protests, and DSA’s 100K recruitment drive. 

Around 10-15,000 members are active in their chapters. While the majority of members are largely inactive in DSA, 65% of members have stepped up to pay monthly dues (whereas the norm a few years ago was paying annually). DSA’s yearly income rose from $2 million in 2017, to $3 million in 2019, to a projected $6.5 million for 2021. From 2020 to 2021 DSA’s full-time staff grew by 60% from 20 to 32.

The typical DSA member is in their twenties or thirties and college educated. Around 10,000 DSA members belong to a union, with a concentration in education and public sector unions. A large majority of DSA’s membership is white, although comrades of color have established caucuses, spearheaded critical initiatives, and taken up key leadership positions. 

Platform Adopted

The most significant decision of the convention was the adoption of a political platform defining what DSA stands for, which had previously been lacking. The platform puts forward a clear vision of socialism as a fundamentally different “social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.” This contrasts with the most common conception of socialism — promoted by Bernie Sanders and AOC — as being a dramatic expansion of social welfare within a capitalist framework.

Another strength is the platform’s working-class standpoint despite the current popularity of postmodern ideas on the left. It identifies the multiracial working class as the historic agent to overthrow capitalism and emancipate all of humanity. The platform boldly opposes all forms of social oppression (such as racism, sexism, and heterosexism) and links fighting them to a bold socialist program.

The platform’s chief shortcoming is the strategy it suggests DSA should use to achieve a socialist transformation of society. While advancing many excellent transformational demands and a clear vision of a new socialist society, it implies these changes can be accomplished by electing a socialist government to carry them out in a step-by-step manner.

The convention agreed to prioritize national campaigns for a Green New Deal, the PRO Act, voting rights, and Medicare for All.

Marxists call this a “reformist” strategy. Historical experience demonstrates that a workers’ government needs to take decisive measures to break the undemocratic power of the capitalist class over the economy, the media, and the state apparatus. Otherwise it gives the ruling class the time and tools to crush or tame a workers’ government.

With this in mind delegates from the Reform & Revolution caucus proposed three platform amendments:
◼           the need for a rupture from capitalism to successfully carry out a socialist transformation of society
◼           while fighting for every possible democratic reform within the existing US governmental system, DSA’s horizon should be a new democratic system based on institutions of popular power; and
◼           the battle for democracy includes a struggle for democracy within working-class movements and organizations.

However, there was not enough support from delegates to include a debate on these amendments in the convention agenda.

Another area for concern is the section of the platform “The Abolition of the Carceral State,” which is closer to a classical anarchist position than a Marxist one in our opinion.

Unfortunately the platform did not receive enough attention or debate in the pre-convention period or at the convention itself. This is symptomatic of the dominant pragmatic mindset in DSA which fails to anchor day-to-day campaigning and organizational tasks in ideological debates about politics and theory.

Going forward the platform can play a very valuable role of uniting DSA members around a political outlook and educating members about the socialist policies we should fight for. But this will require an active effort by the national leadership, chapters, and working groups to integrate the platform into discussions and campaigns, while also debating how to strengthen it further.

Breaking from the Dirty Break

Electoral strategy was a central debate at the convention, culminating in the National Electoral Committee resolution being overwhelmingly adopted by a 77 percent 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 (even when running on the Democratic ballot line), 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).

We must prepare for an inevitable showdown between the left and the capitalist forces that dominate the Democratic Party.

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 that goal from the resolution.

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 official policy 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.

Strong Left-wing Opposition

The strongest showing for the left-wing strategy described above was when 43 percent 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 43 percent of delegates who voted 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.

43 percent of delegates voted for a strong dirty break amendment — a significant base of support for the left to build on.

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 would be ineffective in achieving 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.

Sliding Toward Campism

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

◼           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. This was highlighted in the run-up to the convention when a controversy erupted over a trip by DSA’s International Committee to Venezuela.

The main international resolution (#14) passed with the support of 65 percent of delegates, committing DSA to apply for membership in the São Paulo Forum and prioritize establishing relationships with mass left parties in Latin America.

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 state repression against left activists, or carry out colonial occupations.

This is a shift to the right by avoiding left criticisms of forces like the Brazilian Workers Party and the Venezuelan government.

For example, we supported DSA attending a left-wing conference in Venezuela 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 an example 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 union leaders who have been part of the left opposition to Maduro.

The leaders promoting the international resolution advocated 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 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. Supporting 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, vigorously opposed 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.

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 largest 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 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.

While the majority of delegates perceived Resolution #14 to be an expression of radical anti-imperialism, it will in practice mean a shift to the right by avoiding left criticisms of forces like the PT and the Venezuelan government, while undermining US solidarity efforts with far healthier socialist forces within those countries.

An aspect of the majority outlook was a non-Marxist understanding of internationalism that 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). In contrast, Marxist internationalism requires us to develop an international program through engaging in dialogue and debate with our comrades internationally about how to best overthrow global capitalism.

It is vital to defend the social gains of the Cuban revolution and fully oppose efforts to restore 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 percent 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 social gains of the Cuban revolution and fully opposing efforts to restore capitalism.

DSA’s Growth Stalls Under Biden

Despite DSA’s rise in recent years, so far in 2021 its membership growth has stalled. Delegates from different chapters at the convention also expressed frustration with a feeling of low energy within DSA.

While there is no doubt that organizing under the pandemic is challenging, this does not explain DSA’s recent stagnation. In fact, DSA grew dramatically in 2020, starting in March 2020 when pandemic lockdowns began. It was Biden taking office, not the pandemic, that coincided with DSA’s stalled growth, suggesting the cause is political.

DSA grew from 2016 to 2020 within a political context revolving around pro-Bernie and anti-Trump axes. Now we have entered a new period with Biden and the Democrats advocating New Deal-esque measures that break with the past four decades of neoliberalism. In this new and complicated situation, DSA — and the entire left — is grappling with how to be most effective.

It would have been far better to have had a discussion about the questions of how the socialist left should relate to Biden.

So far under Biden there have not been huge struggles or protests. The current lull in movements is a product of a number of factors. First, there is a mood of relief among progressive workers that Trump was defeated. Second, these layers are hoping Biden and the Democrats will deliver reforms. Third, union and progressive leaders have not made a clear call for mass mobilizations or a determined struggle from below. But this is likely to change; left-wing struggles will likely erupt at some point during Biden’s term.

Amid all the convention debates about process, resolutions, and leadership elections, conscious discussion about these major shifts in the US political terrain was unfortunately absent. DSA needs to prioritize political discussion if we hope to reorient our membership to new political realities. This will require a break from the current culture of “proceduralism” — a depoliticized and overly formalistic conception of how to run the organization.

It would have been far better to have had a discussion — at the pre-convention conferences and at the beginning of the convention — about the crucial questions of how the socialist left should assess the new political situation and relate to Biden. Future conventions should start with an overall political discussion on a draft political resolution from the outgoing National Political Committee (and amendments or alternative resolutions from members), laying out perspectives and priority tasks for the socialist movement.

Shifting Political Balance

There was a strong conservative sentiment at the convention in the sense of not wanting to change strategies that worked well in recent years. While a strategy can work in one context, we should be aware that sudden major events will often require DSA to be flexible with our tactics and change course.

For example, over the past few years the new left has had success running on the Democratic ballot line. But the current tenuous coexistence between the growing left and the entrenched Democratic establishment will break down at a certain point, sharply posing the need for an independent workers party. If we don’t use the favorable situation today to prepare for that coming showdown, we allow the establishment to choose the timing and framing that is most advantageous for them.

The politics of the convention were naturally representative of the more active DSA members. This layer of core DSA activists is more class-conscious than the average DSA member. These activists also have a more political, outward-facing orientation that seeks to organize the working class to fight for structural changes in society.

In contrast, the broad DSA membership tends to be more influenced by anarchistic “prefigurative politics” — a focus on changing DSA members’ interpersonal behavior and methods of organizing to embody socialist values. This can sometimes take the form of attempts to create islands of socialism amid the vast ocean of capitalism through mutual aid projects (although politicized mutual aid can be valuable).

There was a strong conservative sentiment at the convention of not wanting to change strategies that worked well in recent years.

Anarchist and privilege politics had less support at the 2021 convention compared to the previous two conventions. This reflects the political evolution of DSA activists and the weakening of the caucuses which had previously provided a leadership for these politics. Build was influential at the 2019 convention but has since ceased to function. The Libertarian Socialist Caucus (LSC) also appeared to have fewer delegates than at the last convention, and only one LSC member was elected to the new NPC.

While many supporters of these trends have anti-leadership sentiments, their reduced influence as a result of the weakening of their caucuses actually confirms the Marxist argument that a well organized leadership is a decisive factor in determining the effectiveness of political movements.

While the influence of anarchistic and privilege politics was weaker at this convention, it would be a mistake to underestimate the support for similar politics among the broad membership of DSA. These politics are often regarded as “common sense” on much of the new left, and they are particularly strong in smaller DSA chapters where the socialist movement is more marginal and less experienced in mass campaigns.

Strengthening DSA for the Challenges Ahead

DSA is still a very new organization largely composed of a new generation of activists who are rebuilding the socialist movement practically from scratch. Most socialist organizations collapsed or swung to the right when the Soviet Union and its satellite states imploded from 1989-91. Socialist and Marxist ideas suffered a huge setback, and the historical continuity of the socialist movement was largely broken. Since then, populism, postmodernism, and privilege politics have filled much of the ideological void on the left. The new socialist movement is having to rediscover socialism and Marxism, which necessarily entails growing pains.

This setback can be seen on an organizational level in the loss of basic traditions of collective organization and democratic decision-making. The rise of DSA represents a promising step toward relearning these crucial aspects of working-class politics, but it also shows the inexperience of the newly emerging left.

These underlying political and organizational challenges were visible in the sharp tensions at the 2021 convention, which were reminiscent of similar crises that took place at DSA’s previous two conventions.

In a highly favorable political situation where the socialist movement is growing, DSA’s weaknesses can recede into the background. However, politics and class struggle do not simply unfold in an ever rising curve. Inevitably, there will be sharp turns and major events that can create for a time a difficult political environment for the left. This could include, for example, major terrorist atrocities, a wave of nationalism, or a temporary shift in popular moods that results in socialists losing important electoral positions.

Under such conditions, if DSA has not made a qualitative step forward politically and organizationally, there is a danger that the organization could be thrown into crisis, resulting in demoralization, heightened political divisions, and splits.

DSA is still a very new organization largely composed of a new generation of activists.

This would be a serious setback for the socialist movement. It is therefore vital that DSA activists make full use of the currently favorable situation to strengthen DSA to be able to withstand the challenges ahead. This primarily requires DSA to sink roots in the multiracial working class, develop a more experienced layer of organizers, and build a much stronger Marxist wing that can help lead DSA along principled socialist lines.

Philip Locker and Ramy Khalil were elected delegates to DSA’s National Convention. They were central leaders in 15 Now and Kshama Sawant’s initial election and re-election campaigns to Seattle City Council.

---

Democracy in DSA

Despite weaknesses, the convention demonstrated that DSA is a member-driven democratic organization. This is a huge strength in contrast with most other progressive organizations, such as Our Revolution, which operate in an NGO style that lacks avenues for people to join and actively determine the organization’s direction. While unions have the strength of being membership organizations, most unfortunately have a bureaucratized internal life.

Building democratic organizations is not a luxury; it is a vital prerequisite for any project of working-class self-emancipation. History shows that there is a real danger of a bureaucracy developing in socialist and working-class organizations, which leads to splits, demoralization, and undermines working peoples’ capacity for mass struggle. But this convention showed that there is currently no powerful bureaucracy stifling democracy in DSA. At this early stage the bigger problems are DSA’s chaotic internal processes and the lack of political leadership.

DSA has a robust democratic culture at the level of internal functioning.

This organizational weakness, however, does lead to a serious democratic problem. DSA’s elected officials — its most prominent spokespeople — are not accountable to the organization.

There is a structural reality that elected representatives face more direct pressure from the ruling class than the socialist movement as a whole. Early indications of this reformist pressure were shown when three DSA members of Congress (AOC, Jamaal Bowman, and Rashida Tlaib) voted to allow an increase in funding for the Capitol Police, and when Jamaal Bowman voted for unconditional US aid to Israel — both positions which contradict DSA’s agreed policies.

However, DSA has a robust democratic culture at the level of internal functioning. The convention set an important democratic precedent when 91 percent of delegates voted to censure and revoke the delegate status of leaders of the Portland (OR) chapter for their role in removing candidates from the chapter’s delegate election. One member was barred based on political views (membership in the Class Unity caucus) and two others based on allegations of sexism (a claim that has been refuted by one of the alleged victims and a later official grievance process). The convention’s overwhelming decision sent a clear message about the importance of upholding all members’ democratic rights, including the right to advocate for minority views and for allegations of unacceptable conduct to be taken very seriously through investigations conducted by a fair grievance process.

DSA’s democracy was also tested when the early part of the convention was dominated by allegations of abuse by three members running for the National Political Committee (NPC). (Reform & Revolution commented on this during the convention.) The outgoing NPC attempted to resolve this intensifying conflict by barring any comrade facing a grievance investigation from running for the NPC. But 78 percent of the delegates voted to overturn this decision of the NPC. This proved to be a turning point, and the convention began to function more productively. The willingness of the delegates to overrule the national leadership of DSA — unfortunately rare in left and workers’ organizations — was a positive sign of DSA’s democratic culture.

For its democratic decisions to be consequential DSA needs a more political leadership.

Unfortunately, the NPC election was not very competitive. Originally there were 24 candidates running for the 16 seats. During the convention several candidates withdrew from the race, leaving only 20 candidates. By comparison 33 people ran for the NPC in 2019.

For its democratic decisions to be consequential DSA needs a more political leadership and stronger structures. In this regard the convention agreed to some positive measures, including stipends for NPC members, matching funds for chapters to open offices and hire local staff, and plans to create state-level organizational structures.
At the same time, a strengthened leadership must be kept under vigorous democratic checks. Some proposals that would have enhanced DSA’s democracy failed by large margins, like establishing rights for the membership to elect the National Director, recall NPC members and replace NPC vacancies by national election, and set policy through national referendums. Arguments that these measures “require too much work” and benefit caucuses’ “factional agendas” unfortunately carried the day.