For A DSA Activist Conference Not A Special Convention

Minority Statement of The Reform and Revolution Steering Committee

• A minority in the Reform and Revolution caucus oppose the majority’s call for a special convention on logistical, tactical, and political grounds
• Organizing democratic discussions without the pressures of decisions is the solution and the minority supports using the Socialism Conference as the venue for these discussions.

[This is a response to the article: “Empower DSA’s Members to Overcome the Current Crisis“]

It is undeniable that DSA and the socialist left are experiencing a severe crisis. The growth of socialist organizations, explosive since 2016, has slowed significantly. The global capitalist system is experiencing dramatic destabilization, as the shockwaves of the coronavirus pandemic continues to disrupt supply chains, inflation grows in the United States, and oil prices skyrocket. In Europe, the post-cold war international order has broken down in horrifying fashion, as the Russian invasion of Ukraine has created a refugee crisis and escalated tensions between two nuclear armed imperialist powers. The Democratic Party is plummeting in midterm polls, and liberals are returning to tough-on-crime policies. Nationalism and militarism have seen rejuvenated support in the aftermath of the Russian invasion. The reformist policies of the Biden administration have been stopped by Republicans and right wing Democrats. Consequently, the uneasy alliance struck by the Bernie philosophy of change within the Democratic Party has reached its most severe contradictions. Most emblematic was the vote of Jamaal Bowman, DSA member, for military funding to the Israeli occupation, and his travel to the country, which included meeting and posing for photographs with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. 

Bowman’s actions are a serious violation of the socialist principle of anti-imperialism. Despite this, the National Political Committee of DSA voted not to formally condemn or even censure Bowman. Instead, they made secret agreements in a closed session and used them to justify a compromise in which Bowman was rebuked in an article, followed by a high chance to decline to endorse him in the future. After the BDS Working Group publicly criticized this decision and began a campaign around it, the NPC took action against the working group that appeared needlessly punitive, a move that many members expressed their opposition to in an open letter with over 1,000 signatories compared to about 300 for the pro-NPC letter before it was taken down.

The decisions and conduct of the current NPC are very unpopular. However, this is for more complicated reasons than just the decision with the BDS WG. During the 2021 convention, the collapse of the Collective Power Network (CPN)  and its fallout resulted in a serious democratic crisis where people questioned whether the results could be fair in such a hostile environment of mudslinging and ‘August surprises’. The collapse of the Cardinal slate, and the late-arriving letter of opposition against the Renewal slate resulted and exacerbated an election with minimal participation. Later, during the same week as the BDS crisis, three NPC members resigned, one due to unrelated and inappropriate comments, and the other two directly because of the aforementioned crisis. According to DSA by-laws, the NPC will fill these vacant seats, but they risk further escalating the internal crisis if a large constituency of members view the selections as illegitimate, factional or unfair.

The majority position as Stephan posits in his article, that only a special convention could create a legitimate majority. However, we disagree with this assertion on political and logistical principles. 

While we disagree strongly with the actions of the NPC, and have serious concerns over the current structure of DSA, we believe that the NPC is within their rights to fill the remaining seats and capable of doing so in a way that brings us closer to a democratic resolution of this internal discord. We also believe that a special convention in this situation would in fact seriously hinder the prospects of developing a coherent and coordinated solution to the problems facing DSA. 

Political Concerns — Who Should Choose the NPC Vacancies?

The question that is most important in our mind is: who represents the political will to replace the NPC vacancies? While ideally this would be more open to members, the current case is that the Convention voted against recalls and was not in favor of a standing body to supersede the NPC. While there are times in which a crisis is serious enough to radically change people’s minds and have them collectively agree to such a drastic measure as a convention, or creating a new structure, we believe this is not such a crisis. 

Unfortunately, it is rather common in DSA for serious political issues to be turned into massive factional fights. Despite the potential for political disagreements to be turned into productive discussions, productive debate and discourse clearly hasn’t occurred. That is why we do agree with the majority when they point out that in large part, DSA’s national campaigns around the PRO Act and Green New Deal have not resulted in victories that are measurable. The PRO Act, its major provisions, and the $10T infrastructure bill all failed to get past Republicans and the conservative Democrats. There has also been little progress on the Green New Deal for Public Schools in terms of actually passing it. We should be clear-minded in assessing this and other structural limitations of our current political system, dominated by two major parties fully controlled by the interests of capital and the wealthy ruling class.

However, failure or a lack of results does not constitute the need for a special convention. It is common for comrades in leadership positions to fail and lose credibility among membership, that is normal in the struggle. This does not mean the NPC should somehow be stripped of its democratically upheld right to appoint NPC vacancies. On the other hand, it would also be undemocratic for the NPC to appoint comrades to fill these vacancies based on factional preferences, without consideration for the current climate in DSA and the previous political beliefs the comrades who resigned held. It is easy to project that the mood of DSA members would be one of major consternation if, for example, a narrow LSC majority only considered and appointed other LSC members or fellow travelers to positions vacated by comrades from B&R and GND members. This would be rightly criticized as undemocratic and subverting the will of the convention. 

Using STV, the convention proportioned votes for NPC members based largely on shared political outlooks. Those below the winning threshold in the most recent elections therefore did not have enough support for them or their beliefs to be further represented. Furthermore, this would encourage slates to put up large lists of comrades in the future for a chance to get seats opened by vacancies, which would seriously delegitimize the NPC elections by throwing the convention into strategic voting slogs with future attempts to get people to resign to game the system. This is why we would oppose the NPC simply choosing the three runners up from the election. 

Rather, the NPC, with its democratic mandate, must represent the democratic will of the convention and the over one thousand people who signed the pro-BDS WG statement and appoint comrades who align with the comrades they replace. This would be one comrade close to the Libertarian Socialist Caucus, one comrade close to the Renewal slate, and one comrade close to the Marxist Unity Group, Reform & Revolution, and Bread & Roses, who were the base of Matt Miller’s victory at the last convention. 

Logistical Problems — Is A Convention Even Feasible?

While the NPC has undoubtedly taken votes we disagree with, not only on the BDS WG, but on other issues, to call for a special convention is to claim that it has lost the support of a majority of membership. A special convention is not just an “appeal to democracy” in the abstract, but a demand for a concrete action which would require a significant amount of money, time, and resources, would step outside the procedure of the organization, and would intensify all existing political fights. While the procedure exists for a reason, and there are certain cases where it would make sense, a special convention is something to be used for emergencies, not haphazardly. We believe the overwhelming majority of DSA membership still recognizes the legitimacy of the NPC, and wants them to finish their term. 

Beyond being politically uncalled for, a special convention is logistically impossible at this time. DSA does not have the funds, and the staff does not have the resources, to commit to this very complicated and time consuming task. It is a fundamentally unserious demand. The convention would be held too quickly for members and staff to adequately prepare. Delegate elections might well be under-attended or dominated by the faction which can mobilize first. Frustrated by the lack of democracy and transparency in forcing a special convention, a substantial portion of the membership might well sit out the elections entirely. The entire process of electing delegates for this special convention would once again need to be undertaken within every DSA chapter. 

Legitimate Questions — Would this Resolve the Crisis?

Due to all of these concerns, any new NPC that is elected would find itself far short of a renewed democratic mandate, and instead be entirely subject to persistent questions and doubts. At a convention, decisions would not be limited to just an election. Whichever side finds themselves with a majority would likely ram through a series of organization changing proposals, aware that this unique opportunity presents a kind of power that may not be repeated again. Every grievance and contestation over the last year would be aired in a disorganized, unrepresentative, and logistically unsound manner. This would likely play out in a combustive and escalating series of tense and combative moments. 

Far from resolving the crisis, a Special Convention would only exacerbate it. While we disagree that a Special Convention would cause a split, or be entirely unproductive, it would not convincingly resolve any of the political fights and be plagued by the aforementioned doubts and questions of legitimacy. Definitively: This will not resolve the current crisis in DSA, and is not the appropriate answer. So, the question is, what might help resolve this crisis?

A Point of Agreement

However, a point where we align with the majority is in their call for an Activist Conference. Several members of our caucus just returned from the YDSA Winter Conference. Without the factional pressures of consequential democratic decision making, comrades from across the country and across tendency came together to discuss, debate, and organize for a better world. The real opportunity to interact when so many of our comrades have joined during the digital era of our organization will help heal the real wounds that our organization has suffered from asynchronous debate on platforms like Twitter or the Discussion Board. An event where the crisis in DSA can be openly discussed and debated without throwing out the previous conventions democratic decisions is a solution towards bringing this crisis to a close. Comrades could even vote on a non-binding series of agreements that would show the mood of the organization at this point in time.

A response to our comrades’ majority position on the DSA Discussion board from an NPC member has informed us that the NPC will sponsor the fall Socialism Conference in Chicago and open discussions amongst all caucuses and perspectives can take place there if we strive to organize those discussions. The Socialism Conference will take place from September 2-5 and will allow four months of time to allow comrades of different perspectives to prepare the logistics of attending and the political preparation to come to the debate in good faith! Reform and Revolution should be encouraging this positive tactic rather than calling for a special convention.

While a second convention is not the right answer, there remain serious problems that DSA needs to confront in short order. The NPC has failed to provide the level of sound leadership DSA needs in addition to failing politically, and this failure has brought the organization into an unnecessary crisis. In order to correct this, the NPC must engage in a transparent and open explanation of the entire ‘Bowman Affair’. Additionally, public forums should be organized where the NPC can defend its position and related actions to the membership. If they cannot compellingly defend these positions, more organized letters and campaigns should be undertaken to pressure them to reverse their decisions. Without clear concrete steps from the NPC to address the crisis in DSA, a breaking point will come, likely in a more severe form than anything proposed in the majority position. 

A special convention at this time, contested between existing factions, could not possibly result in the positive development of DSA, nor could it even feasibly occur. There is only one means by which the organization can be transformed, and its contradictions overcome: that is a steady, rapid project of developing a mass membership rooted in Marxist principles, electoral campaigns grounded by the goal of a dirty break, and international politics guided by a commitment to international socialism, rather than opportunism. There are no shortcuts to changing DSA, no single convention quick-fix. Principled Marxist political development, achieved through a reasoned, thorough commitment to democratic debate, with an immediate goal of establishing clear parameters for the conduct of our elected officials, should be considered the primary internal task in DSA. 

R&R Signatories:

Jesse D (R&R SC, Portland DSA co-chair)

Sarah M (R&R RnF, Portland DSA AL Steering Committee member)

Ruy M (R&R RnF, Austin DSA Electoral Committee Co-Chair)

Jordan S (R&R RnF, Austin DSA Electoral Coordinator)

Eve S (R&R RnF, Former Boston DSA co-chair)

Ben B (R&R RnF, Austin DSA)

Nathan G (R&R RnF, Austin DSA)