Dueling Programs and The Fight For Programmatic Unity

DSA Needs Programmatic Unity

Reform & Revolution and Marxist Unity Group have both put forward programs for DSA to be adopted at our National Convention in 2025. While the two programs have important differences, adopting either one would be a tremendous step forward for DSA.

DSA currently lacks a program or programmatic unity. As we wrote in our recent article, “Why DSA Needs A Revolutionary Socialist Program,”

“DSA lacks a standard, unified program that clearly and concisely lays out both our short-term demands and long-term goals. In 2021, the DSA Convention adopted a Political Platform, but it was seriously flawed. Rather than a clear thesis on society and the class struggle, this program was a grab bag of demands. Most of the demands were strong, but there was no prioritization, coherent ordering, or distinction between immediate reforms and the vital necessities of a socialist state. On one hand, it calls for a new constitution and political order, and just a few lines later it calls for passing the “John Lewis Voting Rights Act”. Predictably, it hasn’t been used much publicly or even internally.

In 2023, the Convention assigned a committee to draft an action program for the 2024 elections, the “Workers Deserve More” program. While this was a big improvement and actually got some usage by chapters, it too doesn’t fit the mold of a socialist party’s political program. It’s temporary, generally has the same feeling of being a collection of demands, and most importantly does not clearly lay out what our goals are and how we plan to enact them – how we plan to conquer political power for the working class.”

While the two past conventions did take positive steps towards programmatic unity, these efforts were lacking, both in their scope and their political cohesion.

While R&R and MUG are aligned on the need for programmatic unity, even if we differ in the details, others disagree. On the forums, some argue that just about any program would not encompass our big tent. As Alex Pernsteiner writes,

“I’m not personally a huge fan of having a single, comprehensive program. People become socialists for all kinds of different reasons, and even the word ‘socialist’ means different things to different people – some DSA members are Marxists, some are reformists, and some are basically just left liberals. I think a platform like this, which seeks to codify one understanding as the official position at the expense of others, doesn’t actually unite us.”

We agree that DSA is a big tent organization which brings much of the left together in a productive way. However, that doesn’t mean that we as socialists can’t find agreement on our political tasks and goals, at least to some extent. Nor does it mean that members and tendencies shouldn’t put forward their ideas to try and convince people of them.

But more often resistance to programmatic unity has taken a more passive and subtle approach. A program designed as a grab-bag appears to prioritize everything, but actually prioritizes nothing. This kind of eclecticism — in which a series of different and contradictory concepts are thrown together — is popular among some in DSA because it gives ideological handouts to every force within DSA, which avoids making anyone upset. But this is not actually programmatic unity, in the same way that throwing ingredients into a pot of cold water does not make a stew. To make a stew requires energy in the form of heat, which partially breaks down and transforms each individual ingredient, combining them into an integrated unity. Real programmatic unity requires this same process, that the differing ideas in DSA are not only thrown together, but actually combined and integrated into a meaningful whole.

While few argue openly against programmatic unity on principle, the preference for eclecticism continues in another form. In the emerging debate, many on the “moderate” wing of DSA have called for a programme to be adopted by committee instead of at Convention. In part, this is framed as an argument about democratic participation, but our Convention, which already includes the option for delegates to move amendments on a proposed program, is the highest and most democratic body in our organization. 

A committee, on the other hand, composed of a mix of appointed members, would have much less of a mandate to develop a program than convention, and would be far more susceptible to bureaucratic maneuvering and appeasing everyone through developing a grab-bag of a program. There is nothing more that bureaucrats love than maneuvering to please everyone, even if it means organizing no one. And we all know which caucuses thrive the most on bureaucratic methods. The result will be the same type of grab-bag program which offends no one and unites no one. And let us be clear – the effort to draft a program by committee is more or less about stripping any program of a revolutionary perspective and making DSA safe for liberals.
As such, R&R recommends that partyist delegates of all stripes sign both programs to see them on the agenda at Convention, along with all reasonable amendments. Please sign our program here, and MUG’s program draft here. We also recommend that delegates resist efforts to develop a program by committee, and encourage comrades desiring to change a particular draft to propose an amendment.

What Kind Of Programmatic Unity?

For those of us who do seek programmatic unity for DSA, the question becomes: unity of what kind and on what basis?

We believe that real programmatic unity for DSA is not pushed on DSA from the outside, but rather arises based on the synthesis of the existing views within DSA. Programmatic unity for DSA is agreeing on what we can actually agree on.

DSA remains a diverse organization with a series of competing and contradictory tendencies, caucused and uncaucused, as well as a wide range of preferences for strategy and tactics. But for us it is clear that since 2016, many in DSA have rejected the old reformist-social democratic outlook in favor of a more revolutionary orientation. This process remains contradictory and unresolved, but based on our estimate, the majority of DSA members, and especially the majority of active DSA members, do not believe that capitalism can be reformed or can peacefully evolve into socialism. Rather, they believe, more or less explicitly, that replacing capitalism with socialism requires a revolution of the working class. In other words, there may now be a majority for a revolutionary perspective within DSA.

Although many new members may take this as a given, this is actually a fundamental change from DSA’s earlier social-democratic reformist politics. We believe that this shift should be consciously marked by the adoption of a program which clearly lays out a revolutionary socialist perspective – that the working class must conquer political power and establish a new workers’ state. Our program explicitly states that “the working class must take political power from the rich and create an entirely new government.”

Of course, “revolutionary socialism” is not a monolith, and there are many different varieties and viewpoints on how a revolution can be carried out. We believe that when combining the different “left-wing” trends within DSA, there is a majority for a revolutionary orientation for the organization. However, there is obviously not a majority within DSA for any one of these groups.

Within R&R, we hold our own views on specific formulations and on how a revolution might be carried out. While we seek to win over DSA to our more specific views over time, we do not believe that it would be productive to essentially force a resolution with those points onto DSA. It would be more productive to bring a program which can unite the broad revolutionary layers and win over most members towards a unified and clear politics.
This is one of the main differences between our program and the program of the Marxist Unity Group. In our opinion, the Marxist Unity Group’s program draft represents programmatic unity for their own caucus, but not for DSA as a whole. Their program obviously flows from and represents the ideas of their unique tendency which prioritizes “democratic-republicanism” and the parties of the Second International. Even if a majority at Convention voted in favor of their program (which is our preferred outcome if our own program does not pass), this would not mean that Convention or DSA as a whole actually agreed with their tendency’s underlying viewpoint. The specifics of their program would subsequently risk being ignored in actual work. Theirs is a program for MUG, ours is a program for DSA.

A Revolution In Words Or In Deeds?

Another key difference between our program and the program put forward by MUG is that we believe that, in some ways, the MUG program actually fails to lay out a revolutionary socialist position as clearly as our draft.

In our first critique, we observe that the MUG program holds that

“We declare that to be a socialist is to fight for an expansive working-class democracy in which the state and society are democratically managed by the majority. In the US, this means demanding a new constitution…

Our goal is to put workers in charge of the government through a new democratic constitution which will establish democratic rights for all, allow a good life for all people, and end U.S. imperialism.”

We believe this formulation reflects a larger issue with MUG’s viewpoint, which we do not believe has a majority within DSA. The key point is that the MUG program calls for a new constitution, but does not actually call for a revolution. Our program also calls for a new constitution, but bases itself on the obvious fact that a new constitution which enshrines the rule of the working class can only be adopted after the working class has actually seized power. A new constitution does not establish the new system, but merely formalizes it. This is another way of getting at the more general Marxist concept that the “ideological superstructure” (ideas, legal forms, culture) is in general secondary to the “material substructure.”

This is not an oversight by MUG in this document, but actually represents a consistent viewpoint which we have observed in their writings and in our personal conversations with their leading comrades. In an article with a longer version of their draft program, they write that

“The minimum program is the set of radical democratic and economic demands which, while individually achievable under capitalism, taken together form the basis for a revolutionary rupture with current society and the establishment of a democratic worker’s republic. In the long run, they also represent the minimum basis for our Party’s taking responsibility for government”

But the “basis for a revolutionary rupture” is not itself a revolutionary rupture. At some point, there must be an actual seizure of power which displaces the capitalist-bourgeois government with a workers’ government, that is, a revolution by the working class. While such a seizure of power can take many forms, it cannot happen accidentally; a revolutionary program must point, at least in general, to the need for the working class to actually overthrow the existing government.

Outside of the MUG orbit, no one is convinced that the working class will seize power on the basis of demanding a new constitution or other democratic rights. In Russia, the abdication of the monarchy and the subsequent Provisional Government’s failures in World War I led to councils of workers holding real sovereignty over the public. The actual October Revolution was essentially a bloodless seizure of power by the working class, not on the basis of a new document, but on the basis of the working class and peasantry, through the soviets, taking power for their class.

In our second critique, we observe that their program calls for

“All power to be vested in the people’s House of Representatives and its number of members uncapped…

Governing supremacy of legislatures at all levels of government, to be elected under a nationwide electoral standard with proportional representation.”

This system of government, which calls for an empowered, unitary legislature on a proportional basis, would undoubtedly be an improvement over our current system. But the MUG system of government is on the same geographic, one-member-one-vote system which we have today. This is fundamentally different from the “soviet” style of government, where sovereignty is rooted in the workers’ democratic control and management of the means of production, and extends upwards from there.

While the MUG program does call for “democratic management of the economy” this is not necessarily the same as a fundamentally different democratic system based on the democratization of industry.

To fail to root a new government system in the democratization of the means of production is to put forward only a political and not a social revolution. Our vision of a new government involves the democratization of workplaces, schools, and neighborhoods in a far more comprehensive way. And we believe that, although many DSA members may not identify with the term “soviet” (which just means ‘council’), they nonetheless agree that we should seek a system of government which includes this style of democratic participation from the shop-floor up, even if a workers’ state would also include some sort of popular legislature elected on the basis of geography and one-person-one-vote.

These two critiques – the failure to clearly lay out the need for a revolution and a seizure of power, and the failure to point out the need for a government based on workers’ councils which roots its sovereignty in the shop floor, exist not only side by side but also in an interrelated way. As we explored in more detail elsewhere, the fight for economic control over the workplace which develops through the labor movement has the greatest potential to develop into a contest for power by the working class. This was the great significance of Lenin’s slogan “All Power To The Soviets!”

Our Program Must Be An Organizing Tool

It is not enough for a program adopted at Convention to simply find programmatic unity among its members. A program should also empower us to establish programmatic unity between our own organization and the wider layers of the working class. In other words, a program must be a useful tool for propaganda and agitation.

We wrote our draft to be easily readable and understandable to most US adults, including those who may struggle with reading more complicated texts with unfamiliar vocabulary. DSA’s membership is different from the broader working class. A 2021 membership survey indicated that 80% of our members over 25 had college degrees, way higher than the 38% national average. Without talking down to anyone, we wrote our draft in a way that would make it easier for readers to access and understand it. We utilized clear headers, defined unfamiliar terms, and tried to organize our draft so that readers would be able to easily understand how each idea in the program relates to the other.

To expand on this, consider how the text is written. The preamble explains our current system, how it affects people, and what we need to do to end it. From there, a reader can understand that we fight for things today that are different from our end goals. When we build a movement that can take power from the rich, we will have different tasks that we must accomplish. Each idea is explained and then expanded upon in a way that is temporally understandable and has a clear cause and effect.

In contrast, the MUG draft has a high rate of unfamiliar words (about 28% are outside of the most common 10,000 words in the English language) and is written in beautiful, but flowery, language. While many who join DSA currently already know about capitalism and socialism, we believe that the movement required to beat the capitalist class will need to bring in and educate people for whom those concepts are new. The demands as written are the basis of the working class taking power for MUG comrades, but because of this focus it’s unclear how we get there today. The MUG draft does benefit from being very specific in each of its policy prescriptions, but it does so at the cost of readability and at the cost of explaining how we get to a socialist revolution in the first place, especially if one doesn’t accept the given answer of demanding a new Constitution.
This matters to us because we want our program to be used everywhere. When a DSA endorsee is campaigning against capitalist politicians, we want them to be able to refer to the demands in the program that we talk about today, to be able to explain that capitalist politicians in the Democratic party will roll back our victories, and that we need to create a party and movement that can not only fight back, but win. In social movements, this program should be able to be utilized to easily explain our politics today to those at a march or rally in a few minutes or less, and then lead to a longer conversation about what we’re trying to achieve. Just about any working person who’s interested in DSA should be able to read it and really understand it, including those who don’t read often or are new to political ideas.

For Unity On Programmatic Unity

The differences between our program and the program of the Marxist Unity Group are important. We hope to convince DSA and the convention to pass our program.

However, we are in agreement with Marxist Unity Group on the overall question of establishing programmatic unity. And we are confident that the unfolding of the class struggle will further reveal the usefulness of the specific formulations we have developed in our program. Despite the limitations listed above, if DSA adopted the MUG program, it would still be a tremendous step forward for the cause of programmatic unity and could be amended at this convention or the next one.

On the other hand, the biggest crime would be if neither of the programs made the debate at convention.

We therefore call on all revolutionary socialists and Marxists to sign onto both programs for the purpose of facilitating debate and winning programmatic unity within DSA! Please sign our program here, and MUG’s program draft here.

For programmatic unity! For a workers’ government! For a revolutionary socialist program!