Why I am withdrawing from the DSA Socialist Majority Caucus

[The Democratic Socialists of America held their national convention in Atlanta August 2-4. I was a delegate and candidate for the DSA National Political Committee. I was also a member of the Socialist Majority Caucus although not on its slate of candidates, in part, I am sure, because other caucus members realized, as I did, that increasingly my views diverged from the approach the steering committee had decided on with the support of active caucus members.

[That approach was to become, in essence, a faction like the other main factions operating prior to the convention, one called Bread and Roses (formerly the Spring Caucus and prior to that Momentum), Build (which curiously claimed not to be a caucus), and the Collective Power Network. 

[There was also a North Star Caucus that operated as an ideological tendency rather than a faction because it did not seek to place a slate of its own members on the National Political Committee. In my view the difference between a tendency and a faction is that the latter seeks to place its own people on leadership bodies, which tends to transform the group into a disciplined fighting organization, a faction.

[Simultaneously with publishing this, I'm also informing the caucus through its internal mailing list that I am withdrawing from the grouping.]

DSA members in the Socialist Majority Caucus and I'm sure others who read carefully  my campaign leaflet for our recent DSA convention cannot possibly have failed to understand that I was criticizing the way this and other caucuses wound up functioning:

    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.

What I wanted and understood to be an aspect of the Socialist Majority project originally was the idea embodied in the "this caucus is not a caucus" proposal for its name, a formation that, yes, favored a range of ideas we have in common, but especially what I thought was a common view on the right way to function in the "big tent," multi-tendency organization we are all for.

And that way is to combat the fragmentation into caucuses for essentially no good reason. And having ongoing caucuses now seems to me to be unjustified at this stage of the organization.

Even for a convention, factions should not be formed on the basis of affinity, agreement with general principles, friendships and associations developed through collaboration on common projects, followers of particular individuals, electioneering for leadership posts, etc., but --if necessary under certain circumstances-- on concrete differences over what the organization should be doing and how it should function.

The difference that justified a caucus in my view was precisely that we should not be functioning with these permanent factions but that they should be dissolved into the general organization, not by some sort of prohibition, but by convincing comrades not to function in this way. In addition, I think I made a mistake in supporting Single Transferable Vote (STV) election for the NPC, a type of proportional representation, which very strongly encourages factional functioning merely for electioneering.

I now think we simply should have let delegates vote for 16 people and, subject to our gender and people of color demographic requirements, let the raw number of votes for each determine the winners.

I really found extremely off-putting and essentially undemocratic the way caucuses tried to game the STV system by urging delegates not to vote their best judgement, but asking different comrades rank the candidates in various sequences on the basis of some formula or calculation. I think this sort of "tactical" voting undermines individual and collective integrity. We end up voting for a faction and not candidates. If that's the way it is going to be then it should be proposed, honestly, openly and transparently, that voting be for slates.

I realize I have an extremely distinct outlook. I may be the only one in this caucus or among the delegates who in the past was centrally involved in the leadership of a leading socialist organization that I helped destroy through undemocratic practices, trumped-up disciplinary expulsions, and all sorts of underhanded maneuvers and manipulations.

Nothing going on in the DSA today resembles what happened decades ago in the Socialist Workers Party, but at any rate, I think certain lessons are applicable.

Sill, I've decided not to try to start a discussion to convince comrades in this caucus to dissolve now.

I've realized from discussions in my local and at the convention that younger comrades find my views on these issues almost completely inaccessible if not downright incomprehensible. A discussion would be a fruitless exercise.

Better to concentrate on the practical work. And practical collaboration is now the best way to try to get away from the fragmentation of the DSA into rival factions.

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 I didn't sign the 'transparency pledge' of DSA national leadership candidates

[The Democratic Socialists of America is holding their convention in Atlanta August 1-4. As I've already explained, I am running for the group's National Political Committee. The majority of other NPC candidates have signed a Transparency Pledge, but I refused to sign. Following is what I posted in the internal DSA Discussion Board explaining my decision. I will add that although I raise a number of issues with the pledge, just the first one was more than enough for me to reject it.]

Patronizing tokenization
The pledge commits signers to ensuring that "all text is translated into spanish within a reasonable timeframe." That's bunk: it is not going to happen. I'm a professional translator and interpreter. I guarantee you: the cost is prohibitive and the product is worthless. We have no use for it.

Language justice for Spanish-dominant people is an extremely important, serious matter that the resolution I wrote on orienting to the Latinx communities barely takes the first baby step in broaching. And it is not a question of translation, but of creating spaces where Latinx people --and especially immigrants and the sons and daughters of immigrants -- feel at home.

I can't possibly express my disappointment that concern about the Latino community has been expressed this way, through patronizing tokenization, nor how much I resent having to write something like this once again.

Transcription is not the way to get highly accessible transparency
The translation promise is put in the context of "Ensure that all audio communication is transcribed, and all text is translated into spanish within a reasonable timeframe." Well, everything said in a meeting is "audio communication." Is this serious? A day-long meeting will produce a book-length transcript (+/- 50,000 words).

And does this include translating the transcript of every meeting? Both the transcript and the translation are very expensive undertakings and by far not the best way of guaranteeing transparency.

One thing that could be done instead is to have a good quality video transmission and recording of the meeting. This means multiple mics, an audio board or mixer, multiple cameras (2 or 3) to have a good view of the speaker, and use of a computer program like Vmix that basically gives you the capacity of a small TV control room. It might cost a couple of thousand dollars for the equipment.

And, yes, it is possible and not that hard. We do it every day at Radio Información. You do need trained people, but tons of students are learning this in college.

Wrong-headed or misworded provisions
I disagree with "Ensure final meeting agendas are published no less than 72 hours prior to the meeting." I have no problem with updated agendas going out three days before, but the "final agendas" should be those voted by the NPC itself at the beginning of the meeting. I would refuse to be locked in or censored by whatever the agenda-makers decide is worth discussing.

I also object to "Refrain from holding NPC/SC calls, votes, or other discussions of official business outside of official NPC/SC meeting settings." A National Political Committee has to react to real-world politics, a role the current committee has failed to fulfill. That is going to mean holding meetings on short --even very short-- notice or continuing to abdicate that responsibility. Since the statement doesn't make it clear, I don't know if that falls outside the "settings" the email refers to.

I can't support "Hold office hours remotely for 2 to 4 hours each month, which are scheduled at least two weeks in advance and published to membership" without a lot more being said. We are not officers individually empowered to deal with matters. Our function is as members of a committee. There would need to be strict guidelines, mechanisms and safeguards that all matters that properly belong before the committee are communicated to the entire committee. And let's not be disingenuous: everyone knows that certain NPC members have used their positions to build caucuses and uncaucuses. [We have one internal grouping called "Build" that claims not to be a caucus but has resolutions and candidates before the convention].

And I can't "Commit to the work being done by the membership to improve the grievance process and handle those in a timely manner." without knowing which members are being referred to or what improvements they propose. Otherwise, it is just a blank check.

The elephant in the room: factionalism
I believe the real motive for the pledge is trying to do something about the paralysis and lack of transparency that has resulted from factionalism in the NPC. Other points were added --like the translation point-- in an effort to face up to the blatant failures of the previous NPC.

Transparency measures are very much needed but as I tried to illustrate with the video proposal above, there are other solutions that have not been analyzed. A hastily thrown together pledge drafted by a small number of comrades is likely to be flawed. These things need to be seriously analyzed in a process that is open to the entire membership, in order to develop and refine proposals.

The previous NPC was completely irresponsible in failing to deal with issues like transparency, dues distribution, regionalization, the structure of the national leadership, language justice and many others.

Serious proposals for a convention in 2020
In my opinion, except for amendment 15 enlarging the size of the NPC, ALL of the resolutions on structure, dues, etc., should be tabled to the incoming NPC with a mandate to form open, broad-based commissions to draw together ideas and create one or more proposals in each area for a convention a year from now to consider.

We will clearly need a convention then anyways to decide what to do about the fall election, and if we decide to actively intervene, to organize and mobilize for that effort.

I make an exception for amendment 15 to enlarge the NPC. It may not be ideal but it is the most direct, immediate measure we have available in an attempt to prevent factionalism from dominating the incoming NPC the way it has the past one, and to make it more representative.

The pledge I want: dissolve the factions
The pledge I would have liked to have supported is one demanding that all the factions --including Build-- dissolve. I call them factions because that is what they are: highly structured membership organizations seeking to put their people in the leadership and thereby impose their politics as the politics of the national organization.

You might say that doesn't happen in the DSA but I contend there is no other explanation for the failure of national DSA to deal adequately with what Trump has made the top ongoing political issue in the country, immigration, and the failure of our national organization to reach out to Latinos, the largest oppressed minority. It is a reflection of the narrow, economist, class-reductionist politics of the leading faction in the NPC.

I think comrades who want to advocate a particular point of view should function instead as an ideological current, putting forward their ideas through a web site or blog, maybe with an editorial board but without an elected leaderships that serves as a board or executive committee for the group, membership requirements, bylaws, polls and elections and all the rest of it.

The organized factions and their paralyzing squabbling are alienating big sections of the membership: it needs to stop or we are going to pay a very heavy price, and possibly destroy the DSA as it exists now.

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.

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.

For the DSA convention: Resolution on orienting to Latinx communities

[I drafted the following resolution for submission to the convention of the Democratic Socialists of America to be held in Atlanta Aug. 2-4. DSA convention rules require 50 signatures from members  for the resolution to be considered, so I urge DSA members who agree with it to sign it. The links to the signature form can be found here on the DSA's members-only discussion board.]  

Whereas: The Latinx community is now the largest oppressed minority in the country, with 18% of the country’s population, some 60 million people, and concentrated among young people. One in five millennials is classified as “Hispanic” by the census bureau; among post-millennials, one in four.

Whereas: The United States has the second largest number of Spanish-speaking people in the world after Mexico, some 55 million people over the age of five. Some 41 million are considered native speakers as that is the main language used in their homes, a number comparable to native speakers in Colombia, Argentina and Spain  itself.

Whereas: Due to a common oppression and modern communications and media, as well as language and common cultural elements, this community has developed a common identity as shown by the immigrant rights protests in the spring of 2006. It was the most massive wave of sustained protests ever, anywhere.

Whereas: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a millennial Puerto Rican woman and democratic socialist, has become by far the single most prominent Latinx political figure in the community and media, which presents extraordinary opportunities to increase the presence and influence of our movement in that community.

Whereas: Addressing the Latinx community in the language most people of Latin American origin or descent use at home is not  just a needed practical measure, but a political statement of utmost importance given the size of the DSA and its presence in national politics.

Whereas: A socialist transformation of the United States is impossible without the massive, militant participation of Latinx working people.

Therefore be it resolved:

1. The incoming National Political Committee is instructed to devote all necessary resources and attention to guaranteeing that a Spanish-language web site of our organization is launched within 90 days after the close of this convention.
2. The web site will have both translations and material directly generated for it under the leadership of an editorial board.
3. The incoming National Political Committee is instructed to initiate the organization of this editorial board.
4. The board should include not just Latinx comrades, but as diverse a group as possible of other comrades, especially those who have a working command of the language, even if not fluency, but not precluding the inclusion of others.
5. In collaboration with the National Political Committee, this editorial board shall also have the additional responsibilities of promoting the development of our work with Latinx communities, establishing relations with organizations based in the community, and promoting collaboration and the exchange of information between Locals involved in this work. 
6. These additional responsibilities are not permanent but a transitional step to the creation by the NPC of a working group or other body focused  on work in the Latinx communities and its issues, or some other modality for promoting and coordinating this activity.