On the results of the DSA convention: exhilarating but a little frustrating

This is what the future looks like: a convention of millennials committed to transforming the United States.

Some 1,000 delegates and I'm not sure how many volunteers and other members met in Atlanta August 2-4 for the biannual convention of the Democratic Socialists of America.

On the daily radio show I co-host, I said that as a delegate I found the convention incredibly exhilarating although at times frustrating -- and, ironically, for the same reason.

The DSA has grown explosively over the past few years and is now more than ten times the size it was when the Bernie phenomenon first exploded in the summer of 2015. That growth shaped the convention.

For a life-long socialist who first read the Communist Manifesto in high school more than half a century ago, and after a few years of radical upsurge had to live through decades of retreats, it was just incredible seeing this completely new generation of fighters grappling with how to advance a movement now looked to by literally tens of millions of people in this country.

Especially because this is a totally new generation, overwhelmingly without experience in the socialist or any other movement not weighed down by the mistakes of 20th century socialism. But this freshness also showed in so much time consumed by procedural wrangling, instead of political discussion. Yet the way the DSA is today, that was inevitable.

The main contested issue at the convention as I saw it was between a layer of comrades that wanted to foster greater decentralization by taking financial resources away from the National Office and giving them to local organizations. I think the claim to help especially the smaller Locals is legitimate and many delegates su[ported them. But the main resolutions proposed went beyond that, promoting a dis-empowering of the DSA as a national organization. But a more cautious resolution on the same issue (also by an Atlanta delegate) was approved.

The decentralizers lost by around a 55 to 45 margin on their resolutions, although I did not keep a close tabs on the exact count, and the margin might have been a little bigger. But a more cautious resolution on the same question (by one of our Atlanta delegates, by the way) was approved.

Dues sharing may seem like a strange main issue. But there was overwhelming consensus at the convention on the practical tasks and priorities for the DSA, things like medicare for all, an ecosocialist green new deal, tenant justice, immigrant and refugee rights, and, of course, backing Bernie -- to name just a few causes that DSA'ers are involved with.

On the resolutions I felt most strongly about, the one I wrote on orienting to the Latinx community starting with a Spanish-language web site, received the highest vote (88%) on the "consent agenda," a list of resolutions with so much support in a pre-convention delegate poll that they are voted and ratified as a group at the beginning of the convention.

The second-highest vote on that "consent agenda" was for an immigration resolution calling for open borders, which I also supported even though I would have changed some of the wording.

Another resolution also approved on that list was a resolution I co-authored on immigration work. It said, in part, "The National Immigrant Rights Working Group shall approach immigrant rights organizations ... to help to organize national-scale mobilizations" against Trump's immigration policies, and indeed the steering committee of the working group has already met and started to aggressively implement this provision.

A third resolution from Atlanta approved on the consent agenda was by City of South Fulton councilman khalid, demanding presidential candidates support reparations for Black people.

I did run for the national leadership but was not elected, nor did I expect to be. As the convention drew closer I realized that I wanted to focus on how the way I view things is very different from most other comrades, and on explaining why.

So among other things I wrote extensive comments on the Open Borders resolution, dealing with imperialism and Latino identity even though those were side issues and I supported and voted for the resolution.

I explained my overall priorities for changes in the DSA in a piece I published here and as a campaign leaflet that was distributed at the convention. That stressed the DSA needed to focus on the Latinx and Black communities, not mainly as a question of organizational resources but a political orientation. I also insisted this meant focusing on the South, and the real situation on the ground in these and other Republican-dominated areas needed to be taken into account in our national projects.
ts

Language justice and the DSA's internal culture in relation to the Latinx community were central topics in a blog post also published on an internal forum. The piece explained why I was refusing to sign a "motherhood and apple pie" transparency pledge that was backed by almost all other NPC candidates. My explanation also had an extensive polemic against the factionalism that was being promoted by the way most caucuses were functioning (and still are).

This may seem like a Quixotic campaign. But my original motivation in running for the NPC was to make sure that the Spanish-language web site and immigration resolutions were implemented if approved.

With the overwhelming support they received and seeing a number of millennial Latinx comrades who are strongly involved in the fight for immigrant rights running, and some were sure to be on the incoming NPC, that was no longer a big issue. So I decided to switch to a propaganda campaign that I hope started to raise some issues I care deeply about and I think will be important for the DSA going forward.

Why is the DSA so white? Does working for Bernie make it harder to change this?

My friend and comrade, the chair of our Atlanta DSA chapter, just caused a shitstorm on twitter with by saying that the DSA focusing on the Bernie campaign is not good for a lot of chapters, especially in the South, where it gets in the way of important work we needed to be doing to change the group's composition.

I'm not sure I agree with saying that it is getting in the way but I absolutely agree that it does not get us one flea-hop closer to changing the DSA's composition.

And a big part of the reason I don't think it gets in the way is that I don't think the Bernie work is making us look like a Bernie organization. It is a confirmation that we are in fact a Bernie organization. Our saving grace is that we are not just a Bernie organization.

The reality is that the DSA’s composition is disproportionately white, male, millennial and college-educated. Therefore, both comrades and critics say, we must be doing something grievously wrong and must extirpate the toxic white supremacist and patriarchal atmosphere that has led to this result. 

But the DSA’s spectacular growth over the past three years should give us new insight. We say we “recruited” tens of thousands of people, but that’s not true. They joined, and they joined through no fault or merit of our own. 

Their joining had nothing to do with the tenor and culture of the DSA Local in their area. And they are precisely disproportionately college educated white male millennials. That is the composition that social processes much broader than our own internal culture imposed on us.

You might say that makes perfect sense. Bernie is white, male, conforms to gender norms and so we get Bernie Boys. But last June a young Puerto Rican woman, a member of the DSA, pulled the biggest political upset in many a season. A thousand people joined the DSA the next day. Another 9,000 in the month after her victory. Was it a flood from the Latinx community? Not in Atlanta.

Since then the face of democratic socialism has also been the one that graced the cover of TIME magazine a few weeks ago. She has higher name recognition than most of the Democratic presidential candidates. I don’t believe that in recent decades, there has been a political figure from our Latino community that is as well known and popular as she is among us.

Has that made a difference in the composition of those joining?  I think if it were so, we would have certainly heard.

The starting point of our discussion has to be the fact that the composition of the DSA is about American society, not just the DSA.

You might go “Pfew, that’s a relief!” But you shouldn’t.

The problem is exactly the same as if it were completely about the DSA. Only now we know two things.

Thing one: It is mostly not our "fault" because of what we do or don't do. It is much worse than that. We are much more a reflection of our white supremacist, patriarchal, and class-exploitative society than we think. Our current composition has been imposed on us from the outside by powerful social forces over which we have no control.

Thing two: we have to overcome this just the same. Otherwise there is no point to the DSA. And I believe it will be much harder and more painful than we think.

Black and Latino "identity politics" are working class politics

[The Democratic Socialists of America are holding their national convention in  Atlanta in August, and in connection with the event I've been publishing on my blog various posts related to issues in the DSA.

[This one is from the DSA's national discussion forum. A comrade who described himself as unorthodox in the NYC DSA Afro-socialist caucus and in his branch noted that in a recent election Zephyr Teachout lost the race for attorney general of the state of New York to a less progressive candidate who was Black.

[He said he had posted in response to that outcome that Blacks and Latinos needed to be taught what progressive means. I think some people objected to the wording, but I put that aside to focus on what was behind that phenomenon of Blacks and Latinos preferring a Black candidate over a more progressive Anglo woman, and what it means for the political approach of socialists in the United States.]

I think all socialists and progressives need to wrap their heads around the democratic right of oppressed minorities to political inclusion and representation.

I was born in 1951 and the battles for the right to vote when I was a teenager are seared into my memory. And perhaps because I have lived in the Atlanta for more than 30 years, the blood that was shed and the lives that were lost are very much alive for me. And at bottom, the fight was not just for the right to vote but most of all it was about the right to vote for one of your own.

And I know this very well because my community, the Latino community, faces the same problem. We are 10 percent of the state population. We have two of the 180 members of the state House of Representatives. We have no Latinos in the state Senate. We have all-white apartheid regimes in places like Dalton, which are half Latino, more when you include Blacks and Asians, and in the world’s chicken processing capital Gainesville, just an hour from Atlanta. And two of the four large counties in the core Atlanta metro area with about a million people each are both majority-minority but have all-white governments and until 2018, white Republican-dominated legislative delegations (that changed in one of them, Gwinnett, in 2018).

The Latino adults in Georgia have been overwhelmingly undocumented and that has turned the Latino community as a whole into the victim of a new system of de jure discrimination, the same idea as Jim Crow although the details are different. For a quarter century we have been used as a punching bag and scapegoats by white politicians. Now the U.S.-born children of the undocumented are coming of age. And just like the Blacks vote Black, sometimes with an assist from us, Latinos are going to vote Latino, and get help from our African-American sisters and brothers.

And you might say, but your Black and Latino politicians are just as bad as the white ones. And I’d respond, first, so what? Our people have as much of a right to fuck things up as white people have done. And second, it’s not true. There are no whites getting lynched, no white churches getting bombed, no white people being deported back to Europe, not even are white people being disproportionately incarcerated. Nor are we going to exclude them from any political representation, like they did to us.

And suppose you were to run a white DSA member against one of the two Latinos in the state legislature, Pedro “Pete” Marín, a moderate democrat (he describes himself as pro-business and a fiscal conservative, although socially liberal). I’d vote for Pete Marín, and I don’t care if it was Eugene V. Debs himself who was the DSA candidate. Because Pedro stood up and fought for our community against every single anti-immigrant bill that has been proposed in our state legislature.

And when the big wave of Latino immigrant rights protests took place in 2006 Pedro was there – not just at the demonstration for the photo-op but at the planning meetings where no reporters were allowed (well, except for two: me and a Chicana sister who worked for the AJC).

And if endorsing Debs came up at my DSA chapter I’d oppose it, explaining his would be a racist campaign. – not because Debs was a racist, which he was not, but because politics is not about speeches or programs but about the clash of social forces. And in that District a white candidate running against Pedro would simply be a re-assertion of white supremacy. If Debs won, it would be a demoralizing blow to the Latino community and would encourage the racists.

You might say “you’re letting identity politics overwhelm class politics.” But what I’m telling you is this: the movements of Blacks and Latinos in the United States are the most acute expression of class politics.

You say you lived in France, then study Frantz Fanon; you’re in the Afro-socialist caucus in New York, learn from Malcolm X; you read Spanish, read Che and Fidel.

And if that doesn't convince you, find Engels’s fight with the English in defense of the rights of the Irish in the First International, or Lenin’s report to the Second Comintern Congress on the national and colonial question.