Why I am running for the DSA's NPC

[The Democratic Socialists of America are holding their national convention in Atlanta August 2-4. I am a candidate in the elections for the DSA National Political Committee. This is a leaflet I wrote for the convention to explain why I am running.]

• Make immigrant and refugee rights a national priority
• Publish a Spanish website and orient to Latinx communities
• Focus on smaller cities, the South and Southwest
• Oppose U.S. wars and military bases abroad
• Transparent, participatory and democratic functioning
• Create an inclusive socialist movement for the 21st Century

José G. Pérez, NPC candidate

I am running for the NPC in support of two resolutions, one on making defense of immigrant and refugees a national priority and the other on orienting to the Latinx communities beginning with creating a website in Spanish.

The DSA needs to focus on working with people of color and their organizations, understanding that our role is to support, not supplant, the struggles of oppressed peoples themselves.

This also implies orienting to the South and Southwest where the majority of people of color live. It means taking conditions there into account in our national policies. The electoral policy, for example, says nothing about giving non-socialist candidates critical support. It ignores important battles, like for control of state legislatures ahead of reapportionment in 2021. The policy works for heavily Democratic cities, but not for smaller cities, rural areas or the South.

Yet the South and Southwest are essential to transformative change in the United States: the reactionaries have to be fought and defeated where they are strongest.

And a focus on the South means the global South also. International solidarity should be a hallmark of our organization. We must demand lifting the blockade on Cuba, independence for Puerto Rico, an end to the economic attacks on Venezuela, immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and dismantling of the network of U.S. military bases that have spread across the globe like a cancer.

The NPC should function as a political leadership, not just an administrative body. We need to defend and expand our place in national politics. The NPC should encourage chapters to take initiatives in fights like the defense of the “squad” of four righteous Congresswomen of color against Trump’s diatribes by protesting at Republican headquarters or confronting Congressional Republicans at town halls during the August recess.

But consolidating the DSA also requires participation, transparency and democracy. Issues like dues sharing, creating regional structures, electoral tactics and national priorities should all have been handled by creating wide-open ways for members to take part in thinking them through together to come up with one or more options for the convention to consider.

The outgoing NPC’s inaction has led to an unwieldy set of resolutions that have neither been tested by, nor benefited from, a multifaceted discussion.

Finally, I am running against factionalism. We need to channel our discussions and collaboration through structures and spaces which are open to everyone in the DSA.

Members have a right to form caucuses, but caucuses carry a price. Separate discussion lists, private zoom calls, by-invitation-only conventions, “whipping the votes” through one-sided phone conversations, these practices undermine the cohesion of the DSA and can even compromise the integrity of the organization.

And we should remember we are not a consolidated organization. We did not find most of the people who joined in the last three years: they found us. And like them, there are tens of thousands more who just haven’t paid dues yet.

We have to bring together all those comrades to create the socialist movement of the 21st century, and we need everybody's participation to achieve it.

About José G. Pérez
I am an immigrant from Cuba and a life-long socialist, but a relatively new member of the DSA. I am the Treasurer of the Atlanta Chapter and a member of the National Immigrant Rights Working Group Steering Committee. 

Throughout my life I have been involved most of all with Latinx communities. Since 2002, I have been associated with the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights (GLAHR), and currently I produce and co-host "Hablemos con Teodoro," a daily 2-hour news, analysis and call-in show on Radio Información, a streaming station founded by people from GLAHR.
I have worked as a journalist both inside and outside the movement. Until the mid-1980s, when I moved to Nicaragua for several years during the Sandinista Revolution, I was editor of the Spanish-language socialist magazine Perspectiva Mundial. Before helping to launch Radio Información in 2012, I worked at CNN en Español for two decades. I am also an accredited translator and interpreter.
Hatuey's Ashes is my blog. You can check out “Hablemos con Teodoro,” at facebook.com/RadioInformacion.

A discussion on a proposed 'Open Borders' resolution for the DSA convention

[Today I received the link to a "Resolution on Open Borders" posted on Medium that is being proposed for the DSA Convention. As I explain in the comment below that I posted to Medium, while I share the sentiment behind the proposal, I think presenting open borders as a demand, rather than as an aspiration, is a mistake.

[It should not be demanded of countries that are victims of imperialism because abolition of their border controls and defenses would facilitate attacks against them, primarily from the United States. Yet viewed solely as a demand on the U.S. government, it not only would  be impractical but also lead to victimization of refugees and other immigrants in Europe who likely would be expelled and deported to the United States. And in the fight for immigrant and refugee rights, it would take the focus away from the fight for legalization of the undocumented and accepting Central American refugees.]

I very much agree with the sentiment and much of what this resolution says, but I think it suffers from a one-sidedness and lack of precision that would be very unfortunate for the organization to apply -- even though, again, I completely agree with the sentiment.

What do I mean by "one-sidedness?" I think this captures it:

Whereas border and immigration enforcement are tools of white supremacy, capitalism and imperialism

What is wrong with that?

• Well, are Cuba's borders a tool of "imperialism" or rather a barrier to imperialism? 
• Should Venezuela not have enforced its borders against the "aid caravan" that Washington was pushing to legitimize "President" Juan Guaidó? 
• Are we really for Iran not defending its borders against American Imperialism's Fifth Fleet and CentCom troops? 
• Do we think Yemen would really be better off if the savagely barbarous medieval family dictatorship of the Sauds were allowed to invade and take over the country?

I know the comrades will answer, "that's not what we meant." Of course not. But it's what the text says:

Be it resolved that DSA supports the demand for open borders
Be it resolved that DSA supports the the uninhibited transnational free movement of people....
Be it resolved that DSA recognizes and reflects our support for open borders in our evaluations and endorsement of political campaigns.

Some comrades will respond, "C'mon José, we're in the United States, nobody will think we're talking about some other country's borders."

But if that what was meant, that is what should have been said, if for no other reason that to avoid distracting polemics. (And even then, applied only to the United States, I don't think it is right, as I will explain further down).

But first, as to what "nobody will think," that's strictly from the perspective of an "American" (i.e., someone who indentifies solely as being "United Statesian," to use what would be the English equivalent of the Spanish word "estadounidense.")

But there are tens of millions of us born in or descended from Latin America who have a very different set of lenses through which we look at the world.

As Latinos in the United States we demand we be treated as "Americans," that our undiminished human, civil and political rights as members of U.S. society be respected.

Yet at the same time many of us identify with the sentiments expressed by Malcolm X in his famous 1964 speech, "The ballot or the bullet."

No, I'm not an American. I'm one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy. So, I'm not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver -- no, not I. I'm speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare. 

And then, as in this clip from the 2015 Latin Grammy Awards, we all sing together the song by Los Tigres del Norte, "And if we look at the centuries, we are more American than the children of the Anglo-Saxons."

So Latinos --especially immigrants-- will look at this demand very differently than most Anglos would.

But there is also a more immediate reason. This is not a demand raised by the immigrant rights movement, not even the Latino immigrant-based left wing of the movement. And it takes the focus away from where it should be, which is on the most immediate victims of U.S. policy: the undocumented already in the country and their families, as well as the refugees at our southern border.

Another immediate reason not to adopt the wording in this resolution is the election campaign. Obviously, given what I've said, I'm not for injecting this demand into electoral politics.

Although I think the way he has argued for his position is narrow and even reactionary, I agree with Bernie Sanders in not calling for open borders.

The U.S. unilaterally abolishing all immigration restrictions would simply be an invitation to the European imperialist countries to forcibly deport to the United States all refugees and even non-immigrants their Trumpites don't want, i.e., facilitate a generalized "ethnic cleansing" that, without a vastly broader transformation of U.S. society, would be impossible to handle and further victimize those expelled from Europe.

You might say, well, we won't accept people who are being forced to come to the United States but that implies border controls, not open borders.

And more practically, it is simply not a demand that American working people, including most of the tens of millions who view themselves as sympathetic to socialist ideas, can possibly understand. Trump uses this to demagogically claim that his critics want to flood the country with cartel hit men, human traffickers and drug dealers, and the way to counter that is to point to the thousands of refugees, minors and families, who are in fact arriving at the border.

While I agree with the sentiment of "open borders," I think it is better expressed as a desire for no borders, as in "for a world without borders."

I think it was a weakness of my resolution that it did not deal with the issue, and have actually drafted an addition to it but have not added it yet because I had already circulated the resolution for signatures without it. I am hoping after the June 2 deadline for submitting resolutions and verifying the signatures there will be some guidance on whether you can refine your own resolution and how.

That addition would be a new point IV under "Therefore be it resolved" and would say:

The Democratic Socialists of America reaffirm that the aspiration of the socialist movement is a world without borders, while recognizing that slogans that point to this ideal, such as “Open Borders,” are not current demands of the immigrant rights movement.

It might seem very modest but I actually think it is important to add it, because I very much agree with the idea in the "open  borders" resolution that

DSA develops political education resources to be shared with chapters across the country to deepen and broaden the understanding of the demand for open borders and how to fight for it. 

Finally, I want to express my gratitude to the comrades who worked on this resolution because I think it is very important to have an open but comradely discussion on these sorts of issues and I believe that the end result in this and many other cases will be converging towards a more balanced and nuanced position, and even if not, a better understanding of the differing points of view in the organization.