Weaponizing the debt limit should not be normalized
President Biden should do “whatever it takes” to avoid an economic catastrophe Recent reports indicate that the debt limit “X-date” could come as early as June 1. On this X-date, the U.S. Treasury will no longer have enough cash in its accounts at the Federal Reserve to meet all the legal spending obligations legislated by Congress. These obligations include paying holders of U.S. Treasury debt, Social Security checks, and reimbursements to doctors treating patients covered by Medicare and Medicaid. The normal way of dealing with such a cash shortfall—selling new debt issues and depositing the proceeds into the Treasury’s account—is exactly what the debt limit will make impossible on that date. If the X-date comes and nothing is done except the federal government fails to fulfill its spending obligations, economic calamity will ensue: People who depend on programs like Social Security and food stamps will suffer, and the spillover effects on the larger economy would certainly cause a recession—and a truly horrible one if the stalemate lasted for any significant amount of time. The factor forcing this terrible outcome would not be any implacable economic reality, it would simply be Congressional Republicans weaponizing the absurd political institution that is a statutory debt limit that can only be adjusted through acts of Congress. With a responsible Congress, the debt limit would be a silly inconvenience to policymaking. But twice in the past 12 years, Republican-led efforts in Congress have brought the nation to a near-crisis—and the current near-crisis could still graduate into a real crisis in coming weeks. In 2011 (the last instance of protracted debt limit brinkmanship), the GOP demands for large spending cuts did mammoth damage to the living standards of U.S. families by sabotaging the economic recovery from the Great Recession and financial crisis of 2008–09. This time around, the GOP demands are not just for recovery-damaging spending cuts, but also for a complete do-over on already passed legislation; Speaker McCarthy’s recently released list of demands includes rolling back student debt relief as well as the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) climate provisions and enhanced enforcement against the nation’s rich tax cheats. The cuts to IRA climate provisions would be literally catastrophic—the act’s climate provisions are the only thing keeping the U.S. economy on a path of needed emissions reductions to contain the worst damages of climate change. Further, hundreds of billions of dollars of planned private investment have already begun based on the incentives provided in the IRA. Stripping these climate provisions away would snap the economy back to a path toward climate catastrophe and be a huge waste of society’s resources.
0 Comments
Which Makes Socialism the Only Coherent Economic Future in an AI World
by Nathan Newman May 8, 2023 We have a new technology in AI by that is designed to strip-mine the common cultural and scientific capital of our society- and reordering production to ensure people continue to contribute and get compensated for renewing the commons will be a massive political task. So much focus on the dangers of AI is on what jobs will get destroyed, with others arguing technology often creates new jobs out of increased productivity. That’s the history of technology and it’s reasonable to argue AI may not be different from that reality. But where AI is different is that it is clearly a technology that is based not just on increasing the productivity of a particular worker, as did the industrial loom or the assembly line, but makes dominant companies more profitable by, in practice, borrowing the work of other people on an ongoing basis. This means markets will inherently fail to price the value of everything being produced with the help of AI. The company using AI may make money and they may pay their employees (how well being a big issue), but those producing the borrowed knowledge for that production won’t get paid. So the question is less will there be jobs in the future, but instead who will control them and will the people ultimately producing the knowledge we depend on most be the ones making any money in that future? Call it socialism or some other word, but as a society, we will need to deploy substantial non-market policy solutions to address the distortions in our economy that will be the result of expanding use of AI. by Max Sawicky
First published May 2, 2023 in In These Times Contrary to some expectations, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has managed to unite his caucus around an austerity plan dubbed the “Limit, Save, Grow Act,” which is being used as ransom for not blowing up the economy with a debt default by the U.S. government. Democrats are charging that the plan would cut benefits to veterans and food stamp recipients, among others, while Republicans have issued outraged denials. So what’s really going on? McCarthy is accusing President Biden of endangering the economy by refusing to negotiate on the debt ceiling. Of course, it would be easy for the ceiling to be lifted absent the obstruction by McCarthy himself. His is the “stop me before I kill again” strategy. A failure to raise the debt ceiling is feared to impede the federal government’s ability to pay its bills, including interest due on bonds held in the private sector. Failure to pay interest due, on time, would represent a default — the global financial implications of which are unknown, and possibly catastrophic. The debt ceiling is a legal fact, but it is directly contradicted by an alternative fact: the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the government must make good on its debts. So one suggested resolution of this conflict is for the Treasury to simply ignore the debt ceiling and go on about its routine operations. Read more: https://inthesetimes.com/article/mccarthy-debt-limit-ceiling-democrats-biden NS members are encouraged to become candidates for being a delegate to the national convention.
Delegate elections by chapters continue through June 6. Contact your local chapter. From the national office: As DSA prepares to support this important labor fight, we also continue to plan for our upcoming Convention. We are happy to announce this year’s theme: Unite! Organize! Win! Thank you to everyone who submitted their ideas, visuals, and suggestions. The winning theme was born out of a combination of submissions, with the grounding notion that our task as socialists requires unity, organization, and a plan to win. To that end, we are also sharing our finalized Pre-Convention Discussion Guide. Please use this discussion guide to prepare for Convention and the adoption of DSA’s national strategic direction for the next two years — one rooted in a firm analysis of how to best organize our class toward the advancement of socialism in the current moment. We also encourage you to run for NPC or delegate in your chapter and to read through our Convention hub for updates and important information. It may be easier than you think to become a delegete Often locals are unable to fill their allocated number of delegates. So, if you apply, you may win. North Star will coordinate working with NS delegates at the convention. Posted by. Duane Campbell International Workers' Day, also known as Labor Day in most countries and often referred to as May Day, is a celebration of working people that is promoted by the international labor movement and occurs every year on May Day (May 1). Biden's 12.6m jobs is 6 times as many jobs as were created in the 16 years of the last 3 Republican Presidencies, combined. “Wall Street didn’t build this country. The middle class built this country. And unions build the middle class.” - President Biden Workers are rising up across the country to unionize and demand better wages and rights - like Amazon workers, LA Teachers, Starbucks workers, railroad workers, Iowa Tyson meatpacker workers, and many more across the country post by Heather Booth The North Star Resolution on Unite to Fight the Ultra-Right has been completed. We have 330 recognized e mails. It has been submitted on time. A work plan was added as per requirements. Further discussion of the work plan will follow. Thank you to all who so hard to accomplish this project. This resolution basically seeks to implement the North Star strategy as described in our strategy document. Thus, NS strategy will be discussed organization wide. https://www.dsanorthstar.org/our-strategy.html Thank you to the North Star members who signed the resolution and who asked their friends to sign. And, thank you to the several allies not in North Star and from other caucuses who endorsed the resolution. Recall, in prior conventions we only needed 100 signatures for resolutions. We have reached out often and repeatedly to NS members, and many friends and allies. Thank you to the callers, and the Convention Planning committee. The campaign brought out the best of North Star. Now, it will be a resolution probably for discussion at the convention. We have received the report that the Big Tent Resolution has also been filed. The third resolution, On Defense of Immigrant and Refugee also gained enough signatures to be considered at the convention. #20. On the Defense of Immigrants and Refugees https://tinyurl.com/20DefenseofImmigrantRefugees Consider becoming a delegate. We continue to encourage members to become delegates to the convention. There will be an organized North Star presence at the convention. And, you will get to meet some of the active members face to face. Duane Campbell NS Steering Committee U.S. imperialism is not behind the conflict.
By Lawrence S. Wittner | Although supporters of the Russian invasion, occupation, and annexation of Ukraine blame “U.S. imperialism” for the Ukraine War, the U.S. role has been relatively minor. The major actors have been Ukrainians, striving for independence, and Russians, striving to end it. For centuries, a great many Ukrainians, chafing under Czarist and, later, Soviet rule, longed for national independence. This rejection of Russian domination―based in part on Stalin’s extermination of four million Ukrainians through starvation―was confirmed in 1991 when the leaders of the disintegrating Soviet Union authorized a plebiscite. In the voting, more than 90 percent of Ukrainian participants opted for independence rather than membership in the new Russian Federation. Accordingly, Ukraine was recognized by Russia and the rest of the world as an independent, sovereign nation. This agreement on Ukraine’s sovereignty was firmed up by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which the Russian, U.S., and British governments pledged to respect its independence and borders. For its part, Ukraine agreed to, and did, turn over its very substantial nuclear arsenal to Russia. Read more. https://fpif.org/the-ukraine-war-has-never-been-americas-war/ by Trent Trepanier
First published in Socialist Forum Taiwan's self determination is at the heart of the most challenging geopolitical contest of the century. Democratic socialists need an approach which is at once peaceful, socialist, and democratic. The International Committee (IC) of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has created many worthwhile campaigns over the years. As of writing, the IC has campaigns pertaining to Cuba, Venezuela, Ukraine, China, Okinawa, Korea, Brazil, Yemen, and the United States (US) military. Notably absent from the China campaign is direct reference to the people of Taiwan and their desires for either the status quo, for reunification with mainland China, or for de facto and de jure independence. Such self-determination must, I will argue, be at the core of DSA’s foreign policy vision, regardless of broader competition amongst large powers. To neglect the wishes of those caught in the middle of great power rivalries is to play the very game of great power competition the Left ought to fundamentally oppose. This necessarily includes the decision of Taiwanese voters as to their political future, free from coercion or threats from powers both near and far. In this article my aim is to lay out the foundations for a potential IC campaign regarding Taiwan predicated on the principle of self-determination which, in my view, is central to any democratic outlook on world politics. To provide this foundation I will discuss what I perceive to be the primary interests of China and the US, the two most prominent great powers in the region as it regards Taiwan. From there I will detail the policy positions of the various parties in Taiwan regarding the question of reunification or independence. I will then conclude with proposals which could make up a Taiwan campaign. Given Taiwan’s importance to the most challenging geopolitical contest of the century, the IC must lay out a roadmap which is at once peaceful, socialist, and democratic. by David Anderson
In 1928, U.S. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon pushed the Federal Reserve Board to aggressively hike interest rates to control inflation and credit-fueled stock market speculation. They did, and, as a result, the New York Stock Exchange suffered the worst crash in its history in October 1929. Mellon advised President Herbert Hoover to liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people. The Great Depression would follow. Mellon was the country's most powerful banker and a prominent industrialist with a gigantic business empire. He was Secretary of the Treasury from March 9, 1921 to Feb. 12, 1932 under Republican presidents Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Mellon emphasized cutting taxes on the rich. The top marginal tax rate fell from 73% in 1922 to 24% in 1929. The Great Depression was a result of a crisis of overproduction. The Roaring 20s experienced an economic boom but too many commodities were produced than could be profitably sold. During the decade, income inequality exploded. Historian Becky Little notes that by 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income. About 60% of families made less than $2,000 a year, the income level the Bureau of Labor Statistics classified as the minimum livable income for a family of five. At the beginning of the 1920s, rural America's economy was already in a depression. We are socialized to think the boom-and-bust economic cycle is somehow natural. It is irrational, cruel and stupid. There were more than 60 banking crises in the industrialized world between 1805 and 1927. Increasingly during a crisis, many people turn toward charismatic authoritarian leaders. In the final week of the 1928 election, Andrew Mellon gave a radio address to promote Herbert Hoover. He compared Democrats to the new regime in Russia. But in Italy, he said, the Bolshevik menace was met and vanquished. Benito Mussolini had not only saved Italy from any possible danger of economic and social collapse, but had improved the well-being of the people of the country. The Italian government Cooperated in accordance with established economic laws. Many prominent American rightwingers like Mellon were enthusiastic supporters of Mussolini and his regime with the new name of Fascism. In 2008, a global financial debacle occurred and Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke didn't intervene until two big banks had collapsed. What happened? There was a run on a basically unregulated shadow banking system. Deregulation also created a housing bubble of subprime mortgages by predatory lenders who targeted poorer people who hadn't qualified for a loan previously. In Feb. 2009, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli delivered the rant heard around the world n the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. As a financial analyst for the business news channel, he denounced the government for promoting bad behavior by subsidizing the loser's mortgages instead of rewarding people that could carry the water instead of drink the water. He called for a tea party. Santelli didn't mention the government bailouts of Wall Street bigshots. His rant was promoted by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the Drudge Report. A movement was born. Implicitly and sometimes explicitly racist, it attracted suburban, white small business and professional types and was funded by libertarian capitalists like the Kochs.  In 2010, they would help the Republicans win their victories in the elections. The Tea Party still exists. It morphed into MAGA. The current bank troubles grew out of Trump administration deregulation (which was supported by many Democrats). The anti-government tech bros of Silicon Valley now are whining and yipping for the feds to rescue them. The MAGA mega-donor Peter Thiel, the leading Silicon Valley libertarian who promoted cryptocurrency and floating tax refuges beyond the reach of government. His firm promoted a run on the Silicon Valley Bank through social media. In 2009, Thiel wrote that democracy is no longer compatible with freedom. He explained: "The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians have rendered the notion of âcapitalist democracy into an oxymoron." Boulder Weekly is dedicated to illuminating truth, advancing justice and protecting the First Amendment through ethical, no-holds-barred journalism and thought-provoking opinion writing. Source URL: https://portside.org/2023-04-10/capitalisms-fascist-temptation Please assist.
The North Star convention planning committee , along with important volunteers, and our steering committee have been working hard to qualify our resolutions for the convention. Thank each of you who have already shown your support and signed the resolutions. For our first resolution, we currently have 280 signatures. We need at least 50 more. The 280 count includes several duplicates and a few persons who are not DSA members. We need around 350 to be safe. This is an important development within our grasp. For prior conventions resolutions required 100 signatures and we qualified resolutions with 150 or so signatures. We are almost double our past work—but we need a final push. Will you assist? We need our supporters to contact 3-5 additional DSA members each ( or more if you are willing). We need these signatures prior to April 28. Signature links below. This week’s events in Tennessee and in the battle defend reproductive freedom show the vital necessity of working together with other groups to defeat the Right. We should encourage DSA chapters and individuals to participate in a popular front campaigns. That is the first resolution. You can make the difference. The North Star steering committee endorsed two resolutions and one amendment, which our members co-authored: #16. Uniting Against the Ultra-Right resolution. https://tinyurl.com/dsa23UR (This is our priority item.) By this resolution DSA commits to engage in the electoral arena to fight the MAGA -Fascist Right wing in the U.S. This resolution is an application of our NS strategy for DSA. We argue that DSA should contest campaigns in the electoral season, not stand outside of electoral politics. There are competing views within DSA which we oppose. We propose that locals and individuals work with a broad front of voters against the US ultra-right which includes MAGA. neo confederates, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, ALEC, militias, too many Republicans, and numerous reactionary super PACs, foundations, and think tanks. The resolution also proposes improving cooperation among DSA chapters and our sister organizations that is necessary in order to organize the broad front against the right. The Steering Committee also endorsed #17. Big Tent bylaws amendment to damp down the urge to purge. https://tinyurl.com/dsa23BT #20. On the Defense of Immigrants and Refugees https://tinyurl.com/20DefenseofImmigrantRefugees Resolution #20 has now achieved its 300 signatures. However, like our # 16 there are several duplicate signatures, so the campaign for those last few signatures continues. You can use these links in outreach to your friends and allies. Don’t wait another day. Please do not rely upon others to make this happen. It is up to us. You and I. Please assist NS to make it over this hill. Duane Campbell Co-Chair. NS Steering Committee Paul Garver
The Squad is neither a political party nor a formal caucus, although its members also belong to the larger, more inchoate House Progressive Caucus. Squad members support each other on issues and in fundraising, sometimes together with Senator Bernie Sanders. The post-Sanders campaign organisation Justice Democrats, together with the national Working Families Party and several progressive NGOs, is closely aligned with the Squad. Although several Squad members are also members of DSA and received initial backing from local DSA chapters, DSA is not a consistent ally for the Squad. DSA membership is becoming an albatross for democratic socialists serving in Congress. DSA is a ‘big tent’ organisation that has grown dramatically since 2016 in numbers and influence, mainly among the generation under 35 years old. Although the impetus for many of its new members was the Sanders campaign, many of them do not support Sanders/Squad politics, including working within the general framework of the Democratic Party. A few thousand new DSA recruits were entryists from existing or defunct hard-left socialist organisations. For them, the growing Squad represents a dangerous political evolution that could help revitalise the Democratic Party rather than contributing to a purely ‘socialist’ or independent third party under hard-left influence. Campaigns within DSA to break off any alliance with the Squad have taken several forms. .. Published in The Chartist. A U.K. Focused Magazine. https://www.chartist.org.uk/tribulations-of-the-us-democratic-left/ Trump lost the 2020 presidential election but the forces he represented and the ideas he furthered – the contemporary US right – have not gone away. These forces are continuing their efforts to push the US – both at in the electoral and the extra-parliamentary terrains – further towards their anti-democratic vision for the U.S.
NPEC is sponsoring an upcoming zoom session, Confronting the Threat of the Far Right. Session date: April 3, 2023 Session time: 5 PM PT/8 PM ET Three sets of questions will be addressed in this session: 1. Who is the right, both electorally and in the larger cultural front? What groups are the most active? What are the historical roots of the U.S. right? How are these groups organized? 2. The “right” has several ideological strand and beliefs. What are these differences? Is it possible to exploit potential divisions between libertarians, white evangelical Christian nationalists, para-militarists, white supremacists, etc. and other segments the right? 3. What should the broad left do to counter today’s right? How should we organize and with what goals? Where does DSA fit into in the effort to create a progressive counter-offensive to the right? We will hear from and ask questions of Bill Fletcher, John Huntington, and Nancy McLean. These three presenters have engaged with the US far right as analysts, organizers or both. . The presentations and discussion will help DSA members in our day-to-day organizing and will provide important context for our political thinking and work through the 2023 convention and beyond. Join us on April 3. Register for this exiting and important session here: https://www.dsausa.org/calendar/confronting-www.dsausa.org/calendar/confronting-the-threat-of-the-far-rightthe-threat-of-the-far-right We request that some members participating this webinar bring up our own resolution on Fighting the Right. This is a good outreach opportunity.A concrete way to act upon this threat is to build a united front now. Sign and endorse the Unite Against the Right resolution for DSA convention. Time is running out. Signatures are needed by April 14, 2023. The resolution is here on this blog. https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/sign-the-resolution-unite-against-the-right By Carl Pinkston,
On April 8, 2020, Senator Bernie Sanders suspended his national electoral campaign to win the nomination for the Democratic Party. Sander’s campaign was a grassroots, multiracial, and multigenerational crusade that focus on fighting for progressive causes i.e. Medicare for All, New Green Deal, free college education, etc. Or as Sanders stated, “We have taken on Wall Street, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, and the greed of the entire corporate elite.” To progressive activists, this was an important struggle against the corporate elite, but at the end of the day, this was essentially an electoral campaign. Electoral History Let us be clear, there has not been a major national electoral endeavor by a commanding socialist since Eugene V. Deb. In 1912, Debs ran on a ticket as Socialist Party of America and received 901,551 votes. Not since that time and with all the combined left organizational members and supporters together has a socialist candidate been able to reach a quarter of Deb’s numbers. We would have to wait until 2016, when Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, entered the electoral race within the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders has been able to elevate the word socialism which for a short moment dominated working people’s consciousness. In the 2016 Democratic primary, Bernie Sanders received 13,168,222 (43.14%) votes and in 2020, Sanders received 7,708,599 (23.07%) votes. Moreover, in the last CNN debate, 9.9 million national viewers, 848,000 Spanish-language viewers, and 608,000 live-stream viewers watched Bernie Sanders educate the public about socialism. This is after the ruling class had declared socialism dead, and Bernie brought back socialism onto working people’s kitchen tables. Even the combined left platforms (newspaper, radio, TV) in the United States can not compare to Sanders’s reach and impact. However, Bernie Sander’s campaign was not a movement for socialism, but for a form of regulated capitalism. The political demands were not revolutionary, no matter how Bernie described it, but, in fact, was demanding concessions from the system by advocating for more government control in health, infrastructure, and social safety net. Impact on DSA During Bernie Sanders’s presidential election campaign, the Democratic Socialist of America membership added about 10,000 new members, but Bernie’s exit brought into the organization with phenomenal members over 85,000. Let’s be clear this new membership base was activists from the Bernie election campaign and not principally from the social movements of the day: Black Live Matter, Environmental, anti-poverty campaigns, and others. In many ways, DSA has become the home of an emerging new electoral movement that is trying to find a way to hold everyone together. It had many demands, no clear focus, but to build an electoral base. This formation is a united front of various forces newly held together under a rubric of building an electoral force. DSA is unable to be the electoral united front, because of the many fractions contending to move DSA in various directions. One fraction suggests that DSA should move in the direction of a purely political party that would lead the masses to liberation. Drawing a line of absolute demarcation by using a rotating political firing squad to knock out some folks and make DSA a small vanguard for the people. Well, I’m sorry to inform some of them, but we have been here before in the 70s and now we do not exist as a force for change. The ultra-left has a tendency to attack before building for change – they love the revolution without the work. More importantly, DSA, whether we want to want to recognize this or not, is consolidated around one strategy – the electoral arena. Next Steps Since, the 2009-10 economic crisis, the ruling class has been trying to address the contradictions of neo-liberalism and emerging movements. The 2016 election opened the door for the ascend of neo-confederates and neo-fascist to challenge liberal democracy. The question before DSA is what it should do next. I would like to suggest that it build a mass movement to fight the neo-confederates and neo-fascist. In other words, support initiatives that create a united front for an expanded democracy. This democracy is in the workplace, ending voter suppression, proportional representation, ending filibusters and other anarchic rules, participatory budgeting, and others. This united front is based on uniting the many to defeat the few – democrats, progressives, independents, activists, labor and led by people of color. Second, the electoral arena is one, but not the only one, of the key battlegrounds in the movement. Socialists will need to continue to struggle within the Democratic Party to raise the contradictions, but until the activists from labor and person of color fully recognize the bankruptcy of the party, a critical mass for a new electoral party will not be sustainable. Thus, at this time, a working-class electoral party led by people of color will have to come thru the Democratic Party. The struggle for a new electoral working-class party should take place within and outside of the Democratic Party. Yes, at this moment and at this time, this is the principal contradiction – the mass majority against the reactionary forces. This is not a question of supporting Biden or any democratic candidate, but about how we will unite the many to defeat the reactionary forces that will limit and push us back in our struggle for working people. I know this will not be easy, but no concrete material struggle is. Thus, I ask you now should we engage in this fight or sit this out? The working-class demand that we are not talker but doer; that we are conscious builder and not ivy league intellectual; and that we will walk with the working class in the most difficult of struggle and not simply write about them from afar. Socialists are open, never hide their agenda, and are clear about their immediate and long-term goals for change. Carl Pinkston. Operation Director of Black Parallel School Board (Sacramento) and Director of the African Research Institute. as well as former member of Liberation Road and Institute for Social and Economic Studies. For more on the history of this political direction see. https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/manning-marable-1950-2011-a-radical-intellectual-a-dsa-founder Editor’s note. A concrete way to implement this direction now, is to sign and endorse the Unite Against the Right resolution. Time is running out. Signatures are needed by April 14, 2023. The resolution is here. https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/sign-the-resolution-unite-against-the-right Alexander Hernandez and I ( Duane Campbell) urge you to sign the resolution to establish Immigrants Rights as a priority in DSA. The resolution on the Defense of Immigrants and Refugees was written by members of the national Immigrants' Rights Working Group. This resolution reaffirms our commitment to building with working-class communities of color currently outside of DSA. The proposal is intended to prioritize this crucial work with action and calls for a modest budgetary allocation. Delegates to DSA’s 2017, 2019, 2021 conventions voted to make the defense of immigrants and refugees a priority, but since the Immigrants’ Rights Working Group peak in March 2022 with 1,003 members, at least 31 chapters having a formal immigrants rights group and 50 others interested in forming one, the work has been neglected by a lack of attention from the NPC and a lack of resources. The North Star Caucus endorsed and supported the Immigrants Rights Resolutions in 2019 and 2021. While the conventions supported these efforts, there has not been significant national support. In 2021 the IMWG was subject to significant disruption, explained here. https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/defending-immigrants-and-opposing-the-authoritarian-enemy-with-or-without-dsa Now, a restructured IMWG is working to renew this work. This proposal calls for support of this pro immigrant agenda and we again ask for North Star’s support. The proposal also calls for “immigrants and their communities to lead this struggle and determine its tactics.” A key component for this work is the sensitivity of organizing in immigrant and undocumented people’s communities. And that sometimes means our role is not in the spotlight and that sensitivity migrants in the United States under the current legal framework are disenfranchised from basic legal protections. This is reflected across the immigrants rights movement in legislative battles and nonviolent action. This work, centering the communities impacted means DSA is not always the visible partner; and until the makeup of our base changes, we should not be expected to be leading, but continue to prioritize relationship building and learning to listen to members of these communities. The relationship and trust building between movement bases takes time, showing up and listening is just the start. Please sign the resolution here. And, share it with your DSA friends. https://docs.google.com/document/d/12jxNfyUny_IY2NeE5YyQ2k-SwyMl2Tfq1aQT8TWOkgE/edit We also support the following resolutions.
Thank you for your consideration. Alexander Hernandez, Duane Campbell Also, in Celebration of Cesar Chavez Day in some elevent states, see this.from our blog. https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/cesar-chavez-dolores-huerta-and-strategic-racism Urgent. Action Needed. I and the NS Caucus urges you to endorse the resolution- Unite Against the Maga-Right as a guide to popular political participation at the August DSA convention, The resolution is here. https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/sign-the-resolution-unite-against-the-right If you have already signed, thank you. But, read on. We need more assistance. By this resolution DSA commits to engage in the electoral arena to fight the MAGA -Fascist Right wing in the U.S. This resolution is an application of our NS strategy for DSA. We argue that DSA should contest campaigns in the electoral season, not stand outside of electoral politics. There are competing views within DSA which we oppose. We propose to form a broad front against the US ultra-right which includes MAGA. neo confederates, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, ALEC, militias, too many Republicans, and numerous reactionary super PACs, foundations, and think tanks. The resolution also proposes improving cooperation among DSA and its sister organizations that is necessary in order to organize the broad front against the right. For your information, here is the draft electoral resolution being prepared for consideration by the national DSA electoral committee for the convention. Draft electoral resolution: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mRB4CPfimNv-7WH45I11pAnu6jgg-NF5iPNzepc_Fds/edit This proposal is radically inadequate ! Instead, we are preparing for DSA’s 2023 convention by presenting our own resolution about politically confronting the ultra-right. Notice please, in their world, there is no right wing threat. There is no danger of Maga – Republicans and the insurrectionists. There is no neo confederacy. There is no danger to democracy. There is no plan for practical, realistic, political participation in preparation for 2024. We need to get our resolution accepted by 300 DSA members in order to have an alternative on the floor at the convention. This is our North Star strategy in action. Please assist. A second resolution has been posted on our blog along with text on building a broad tent organization.. https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/build-a-big-tent-please-sign-the-resolution Please sign both resolutions. Ultra Right: https://tinyurl.com/dsa23UR Big Tent: https://tinyurl.com/dsa23BT You could draft your personal appeal by creating your own message using the links provided or by linking to the North Star blog. https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/sign-the-resolution-unite-against-the-right We need your assistance now. Please sign the resolutions. And, reach out to your friends and allies and ask them to sign. Thank each of you for your assistance in building and retaining a democratic DSA. In socialist solidarity, Duane Campbell Co chair. North Star Caucus. A majoritarian strategy
On March 24 The DSA North Star Caucus for Socialism and Democracy emailed our 350 Caucus members asking them to spread the word for DSA members to sign the Convention Resolution Against the Ultra-Rightwritten by North Star members, as well as a member-authored Bylaws Amendment titled the DSA 2023 Big Tent Bylaw Amendment. For typable links to each, see here: Ultra-Right: https://tinyurl.com/dsa23UR and here: Big Tent: https://tinyurl.com/dsa23BT. Over 300 signatures are needed before April 15; please do not delay! Together, the resolution and the bylaws amendment will help build DSA as a democratic socialist organization which can unite the majority of people to oppose the ultra-right in this nation. We can do so in a way consistent with a Purpose which has attracted well over 100,000 people to join DSA over the years. Earlier on this blog we posted the text of the Uniting Against the Ultra-Right resolution. Both the resolution and the amendment were written by North Star members and approved by our Steering Committee. But any DSA member in good standing can sign on to ensure that they are debated at the 2023 Convention, without necessarily supporting our Statement of Principles. The Big Tent Amendment was motivated by a disturbing tendency among hardline tendencies within DSA to surrender the urge to purge our ranks of those who may disagree with one or another of our national or chapter positions or may say or do thinks the hardliners feel are inconsistent with what they feel are the principles and/or policies of the organization. Our Constitution and Bylaws do not specify what those principles and policies are, yet the expulsion clause of the Bylaws current permits expulsion by either the NPC or by chapters for “substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization.” This can lead to among DSA members who hold public office or are seeking office or are active in their chapters or in mass organizations that things they say or do can result in charges being brought against them, leading to possible expulsion. This can create an atmosphere that inhibits debate and disagreement within DSA. A number of us concluded that the DSA Constitution’s Statement of Purpose is the best standard for defining our principles. It is re-printed below in the Rationale for the Bylaws Amendment. By striking out “principles or policies of the organization” and substituting DSA Constitution Article II Purpose we hope to reinforce the democratic nature of our organization. Members who violate specific policies designed to provide for a democratic DSA—such as theft or misuse of membership records, or violations of HGO policies could still face appropriate discipline or be expelled on the grounds already in the Bylaws: “if they consistently engage in undemocratic, disruptive behavior.” But dissent for particular platform planks, convention resolutions, or local statements would not be grounds for expulsion unless they rose to the level of demonstrating substantial disagreement with the purpose of the organization. The Big Tent Amendment makes no changes in other provisions of Section 3 Expulsion, some of which have long been controversial. But we think that the minor clarification we propose deserves support from across the spectrum of views within DSA. Following is the text: Text of the DSA 2023 Big Tent Bylaws Amendment Authors: Bill Barclay (Ventura County), Duane Campbell (Sacramento), Michael Dover (Cleveland), John Heppen (Twin-Cities), Alexander Hernández (Pasco-Hernando), Michele Rossi (Philadelphia), Mark Schaeffer (Albany NY) Rationale: As a democratic socialist organization, DSA members should always have the privilege and even responsibility to debate or publicly dissent from specific convention resolutions, NPC statements or local statements. The DSA Bylaws Article I Section 3 allows expulsion of members in “substantial disagreement” with “principles or policies of the organization”, but these principles and policies are not specifically defined anywhere in the DSA Constitution or Bylaws. The DSA Constitution Article II Purpose states these principles at length: "We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in the United States of America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of U.S. society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population." These principles have motivated well over 100,000 people to join DSA over the years. It is important that DSA retains our character as a large democratic socialist organization with a variety of points of view. Amended Language: The DSA Bylaws shall be amended as follows:[to substitute DSA Constitution Article II Purpose for “principles and policies of the organization”; no other changes to existing Article 1] DSA Bylaws, Article I (Membership), Section 3 (Expulsion): Members can be expelled if they are found to be in substantial disagreement with the [Add: DSA Constitution Article II Purpose] [Delete: principles or policies of the organization] or if they consistently engage in undemocratic, disruptive behavior or if they are under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization. Members facing expulsion must receive written notice of charges against them and must be given the opportunity to be heard before the NPC or a subcommittee thereof, appointed for the purpose of considering expulsion. The North Star Caucus for Socialism and Democracy has proposals for the DSA Convention this summer. The first one put forward here -- “Unite Against the Ultra-Right” -- is aimed at building a broad front against the incipient neo-fascism of the Republican Party. We urge all members of Democratic Socialists of America to sign on. A minimum of 300 signatures is required for a resolution to be considered at the convention. After you have signed, please circulate it among your comrades for support.
Here is the text: Uniting Against the Ultra-Right Authors: Duane Campbell (Sacramento), Itzhak Epstein (New York City), Barbara Joye (Greater Atlanta), Max Sawicky (Metro DC) Preamble: Democratic socialists must take seriously the threat to our democracy posed by the extremist right-wing elements in the US that have coalesced around the MAGA movement and its allies and gained control of the Republican Party to the point where it is barely distinguishable from them. The ultra-right’s rule would undermine our already inadequate constitutional order in favor of authoritarian rule by the propertied classes, combined with weakening of the federal government and the suppression of basic civil rights, environmental protection and public services. To say that the ultra-right is the principal enemy does not mean that it is the only enemy. It means, however, that we must focus on uniting democratic socialists, progressives and all those willing to build towards a majority which can defeat this threat. This broad front must be multi-racial and cross-class. It cannot be an alignment of the Left alone nor can it be limited to those who are in total agreement with a left/progressive agenda. We are aware that the necessary organized nucleus of such a broad front does not exist and that DSA is not a part of such an alliance. Therefore, we are taking the first steps toward its formation and also addressing the issue that the democratic left is splintered among many organizations that often act with little coordination. Improvement should start by DSA approaching its nearest sister organizations. Budget and Staff Implications: One staff person will collaborate with other organizations in establishing the broad front and serve as a resource person to DSA on fighting the ultra-right. The broad front may establish its own staff and financial resources. There will be a need for a staff person, if there isn't one yet, to look after cooperation and coordination with other democratic left organizations. This person will assist DSA bodies in working with their opposite numbers. Resolved: DSA should urgently work in cooperation with like-minded organizations to establish a broad front that is committed to the defeat of the ultra-right. The foundation of this block should rest on improved cooperation and coordination among democratic left organizations on issues such as the defense of democracy, the Green New Deal, labor organizing, reproductive choice, universal health care, racial justice, and progressive taxation. PLEASE SIGN HERE We urge you to circulate this blogpost URL. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election but the forces he represented and the ideas he furthered – the contemporary US right – have not gone away. These forces are continuing their efforts to push the US – both at in the electoral and the extra-parliamentary terrains – further towards their anti-democratic vision for the U.S.
NPEC is sponsoring an upcoming zoom session, Confronting the Threat of the Far Right. Session date: April 3, 2023 Session time: 5 PM PT/8 PM ET Three sets of questions will be addressed in this session:
We will hear from and ask questions of Bill Fletcher, John Huntington, and Nancy McLean. These three presenters have engaged with the US far right as analysts, organizers or both. . The presentations and discussion will help DSA members in our day-to-day organizing and will provide important context for our political thinking and work through the 2023 convention and beyond. Join us on April 3. Register for this exiting and important session here: https://www.dsausa.org/calendar/confronting-www.dsausa.org/calendar/confronting-the-threat-of-the-far-rightthe-threat-of-the-far-right We need to invest and expand our publications and media, not liquidate. By Alexander Hernández (Includes Proposed Amendments) Since 2019 there have been four instances the convention has taken up questions referencing Editorial Boards. In one instance a reference to the Democratic Left Editorial Board and another to the NPCs role in overseeing all Editorial Boards. Two other instances were with reference to an Editorial Board orienting towards Latinx communities. In the first case, 2019 resolution Orienting towards Latinx communities was the most voted for resolution to pass on the consent agenda. The 2019-2021 NPC failed to implement this convention mandate. While an attempt to bring the issue to convention 2021, via resolution #36 Prioritizing Working-class Latino Organizing in DSA, was ultimately tabled due to lack of time; the 2021-2023 NPC allowed for the originally passed mandate and follow up resolution to remain tabled. If the goal is to revitalize our publications, you do not do so by cutting the budget or consolidating the work. You do so by investing into our publications and media. And one crucial way already mandated is to create the editorial board for Latinos Socialistas. The reason our Democratic Left went from 18 pages to 4 is not from lack of volunteers and membership input, rather from a failure in leadership to act or rather even realize that a 20% budgetary cut across the board included the organization's publication The current proposal circulating is misguided and should be rejected as currently presented. In the event the proposal reaches convention, I would offer the amendment below to truly revitalize our publications and media as a top national priority. Starting by fulfilling our commitment of orienting and organizing Latinx communities. Proposed amendment to revitalize and expand DSA publications as national priority ( Editor's note. It has become clear through posts on social media that the original post below did not show all the details. This was an error in our posting. Note; the substitute proposal is here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-6IqVB0oCvJPhuRjTNpZpJxFCxHJe4DK/view?usp=drivesdk This resolution may not get to the convention. It was developed to illustrate what was wrong with the original proposal. Proposed amendment to revitalize and expand DSA publications as national priority Be it therefore resolved that the revitalization and expansion of DSA publications and media will be a top national priority. Resolved the National Political Committee will initiate the selection of an Editorial Board as mandated by 2019 resolution #6 Orienting to Latinx Communities, that the Latinos Socialistas Editorial Board be composed of 9 4 Editors elected no later than 3 months after this each national convention by the NPC following a public call for nominations open to all DSA members in good standing, Resolved that DSA’s publications will continue to be open to the participation of members in good standing; to that end, the NPC will create a public sign-up form for DSA members to volunteer in producing any publication (Latinos Socialistas, Democratic Left Print, Democratic Left Blog or Socialist Forum), and will follow up with each member who submits the form, Resolved that the Editorial Board will choose among itself an Editor-in-Chief, functionally the chair, responsible for organizing meetings and ensuring tasks are bottom lined, and that all Board members have equal votes on matters, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-6IqVB0oCvJPhuRjTNpZpJxFCxHJe4DK/view?usp=drivesdk North Star member Bill Barclay breaks down the Silicon Valley Bank collapse here.
Excerpt: Where is Powell? Where is Yellen? Stop this crisis NOW. Announce that all depositors will be safe. – David Sacks, PayPal co-founder and Silicon Valley libertarian commentator, 3/10/2023 OK. We can all enjoy some schadenfreude as the Silicon Valley techno-libertarians discover that maybe there is a role for government, after all. Especially when their money in Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) might vanish. Of course, it didn’t. It didn’t because those burdensome government agencies decided to make them whole, 100 cents on the dollar, including the more than 90% of deposits that were above the $250,000 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limit. . . . Silicon Valley libertarianism, every congressional Republican, 50 congressional Democrats—and why are some still sitting on the banking committees?
Harold Meyerson The implosion of Silicon Valley Bank has brought with it—or, at least, should bring with it—the implosion of the reputations of certain key groups and individuals in America’s political and economic infrastructure. The list begins with SVB’s own leaders, of course, most particularly CEO Greg Becker, who repeatedly urged Congress in 2018 to eliminate the Dodd-Frank regulation requiring midsize banks like his to maintain a prudent amount of ready money lest nefarious forces cause a run on the bank. But Becker is just one of a number of public figures whose credibility just now is at Tucker Carlson levels. Silicon Valley was already going through a hard time before SVB went under, as the nation’s consumption of digital products declined with the waning of the pandemic. (Just today, Meta [aka Facebook] announced it would lay off another 10,000 employees.) But Silicon Valley’s defining ideology—a libertarianism that extolled private markets and condemned government efforts to regulate them—has been shown to be as hollow as Marjorie Taylor Greene’s head. I won’t enumerate all the pleas to the feds to step up and rescue their deposits from the very same Valley libertarians who’d been disparaging any governmental role in the economy as recently as the middle of last week. Michael Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times and Adam Lashinsky in The Washington Post have both done excellent jobs laying out this epic of hypocrisy. Libertarianism will surely survive this setback; it’s as American as mass shootings. But the one wing of libertarianism with cultural cachet was Silicon Valley’s super-cool version. (Compare and contrast Steve Jobs and Ron Paul.) Now that version has been shown to be as phony as a three-dollar bill (for which, doubtless, there is a crypto equivalent). Reputational damage also attaches to the members of Congress who voted in 2018 to roll back the keep-cash-handy provisions of Dodd-Frank on midsize ($50 billion to $250 billion in assets) banks. That list includes every Republican save one, as well as 33 House Democrats and 17 Democratic senators. None of the Democrats whose districts were even remotely close to Silicon Valley voted for the measure, nor did California’s senators (Feinstein and Harris). The yes votes came instead from a mix of the pro-corporate Democrats usually hailed by centrist publications for their bipartisanship (Virginia’s Mark Warner, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, New Jersey’s Josh Gottheimer), from the senators and representatives of states dominated by banks (Delaware’s Tom Carper, Chris Coons, and Lisa Blunt Rochester), and from a small number of inner-city representatives doing the bidding of their cities’ midsize banks. A number of those Democrats in both houses served on the congressional committees that oversaw banking and thus received ample campaign funding from the banks; those who served on the Senate’s committee, Warner in particular, played a decisive role in passing that legislation. (Warner won the chutzpah prize of the month last weekend when he defended the 2018 deregulation on a Sunday talk show.) Why their fellow Democrats would want to keep these deregulators on those committees now, given their appalling lack of judgment, is a good question. There should be some price attached to having lit the deregulatory fuse in 2018; commendably, Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego, currently seeking Kyrsten Sinema’s Senate seat, has taken her to task for voting for the measure back when she was in the House. And then there’s the reputation of the mega-banker who didn’t step up: Jamie Dimon. His bank, JPMorgan Chase, is much the nation’s largest, and best equipped to take over the remaining assets and debts left by SVP. Old J.P. Morgan himself, it’s worth recalling, ended the financial panic of 1907, in which banks were toppling like tenpins, by pledging his bank’s reserves to stabilize the system, and strong-arming the heads of other big banks to do the same. Dimon is the one banker, and Chase the best-suited bank, capable of doing the 21st-century version of that today. It’s time for President Joe to give CEO Jamie a friendly call. The American Prospect Meyerson on TAP https://americanprospect.bluelena.io/index.php?action=social&chash=c45008212f7bdf6eab6050c2a564435a.1955&s=f3196cb603d6d11dedcd326ed6daf0e3 By. Alex Caputo-Pearl
In the strike, we won enforceable class size caps (which very few districts have) for the first time in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Before the strike, LAUSD put class size numbers on a page, but they meant nothing because they were not legally enforceable. There were hundreds of K-3 classes with over 30 students in them, and many high school classes with over 50. Our victory required every class to come down to cap numbers, impacting classes all over the district at every grade level. The strike put us in the driver’s seat on class size for the first time--winning enforceable caps in 2019 means we can use every round of bargaining from the strike forward to push caps down. In the strike, we won a salary increase among the highest in the state at the time and beat back the district’s attempt to create a two-tier healthcare plan, one of the most insidious attacks on workers and unions. LAUSD wanted educators hired after 2019 to have a weaker healthcare plan than those hired before 2019. If we had not won this, our union would have had a divisive dilemma at its core. In the strike, we won unprecedented Common Good bargaining victories on racial justice, including:,,,,, https://convergencemag.com/articles/utla-reclaim-strike-showed-what-labor-community-can-do/ If the Left is to succeed where past generations have failed, it can’t allow sectarian organizations to operate as “parties within a party.”
BILL BARCLAY, LEO CASEY, JACK CLARK, RICHARD HEALEY, DEBORAH MEIER, MAXINE PHILLIPS, CHRIS RIDDIOUGH AND JOSEPH M. SCHWARTZ MARCH 30, 2021 The remarkable growth of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) over the past four years, from a group with a few thousand members to one with fifteen times that number, has made it the most significant U.S. socialist organization in nearly a century. Successful campaigns to elect open democratic socialists to public office have given the DSA real, if still embryonic, political influence. Four members -- Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib -- now sit in the House of Representatives. Together with Bernie Sanders in the Senate, this is the largest number of self-avowed democratic socialists ever to hold Congressional office simultaneously, to say nothing of the scores of DSA members who have been elected to state legislatures, county boards and city councils in recent years. As DSA has grown in size and political influence, so too has the interest it has attracted from small political groups to its left. These “sects,” short for sectarian organizations, see opportunities for themselves in the large numbers of young people new to politics who have joined DSA, viewing them as potential recruits for their emaciated ranks. The recent announcement of the Trotskyist organization Socialist Alternative (SAlt) that its members were coming aboard, followed by a similar declarationfrom its leading member, Kshama Sawant, has simply made public a process that has been underway for some time -- that various marginal Trotskyist organizations have infiltrated the DSA in a practice known as “entryism.” What is entryism and what kind of impact could it have on DSA? Let’s start with this disingenuous passage in the SAlt announcement: We realize that DSA has a national “ban” on members of democratic centralist organizations joining. However, many DSA members we’ve talked to oppose this Cold War holdover and are excited about Socialist Alternative members joining. While this rule was originally created to prevent Marxists from joining DSA, in recent years, a new generation of DSA activists have changed the organizations’ politics for the better, many of them identifying as Marxist. We think DSA should remove this exclusionary rule as another useful step towards transforming the socialist left into an important component for the emerging class struggles. We, the undersigned, were involved in the crafting and adoption of the DSA Constitution that the SAlt communiqué alluded to. We have been a part of DSA’s first generation of national leadership, and we have served in its two predecessor organizations, the New American Movement and the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee. SAlt’s claim that Marxists have been “banned” from joining DSA is a self-serving fiction, and they know it. Many in the original leadership of DSA identified as Marxists. Michael Harrington, one of our two national co-chairs and our most prominent leader at the time of DSA’s founding, wrote a number of widely read books in which he made a case for Marx’s vision of socialism as democratic. Others of us who did not call ourselves Marxists never considered that they should be excluded from DSA. Even if DSA’s founders had not included many self-avowed Marxists, simple logic dictates that if we did not want them in our ranks, our Constitution would have explicitly prohibited them from joining. It did not. Contrary to the fables of SAlt, there are no political or ideological tests for joining DSA, no “bans” on who can join, and no approval process for new members. Don’t take our word for it: Read the document as it’s written. Ask yourself how any member of SAlt, past and present, could have joined DSA. DSA’s founders believed that we should assume the good faith of those who wanted to join our ranks, but we were not naïve. We were experienced and battle-hardened democratic socialists who had come from every part of the U.S. Left: women and men who had been leaders of the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, and various Trotskyist organizations, who were part of the Old Left of the 1930s and the New Left of the 1960s, and who came out of trade unions and civil rights, feminist and LGBTQ groups. Assumptions notwithstanding, our rich collective memory told us that there would be small numbers of people who joined DSA in bad faith, that these people would behave in ways that were injurious to the mission and work of DSA, and that this behavior would need to be addressed. We knew from our history that the more successful DSA became, the more people would enter it for reasons other than advancing its mission. In the most extreme of these cases, DSA could well find that it needed to use the most serious penalty a democratic organization can levy against a member -- expulsion. And given the gravity of such a step, we wanted to make sure that the Constitution specified its conditions so it would not be employed capriciously. Moreover, we wanted to ensure that there was due process for the member being expelled. With this in mind, we wrote the following: Members can be expelled if they are found to be in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization or if they consistently engage in undemocratic, disruptive behavior or if they are under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization. Members facing expulsion must receive written notice of charges against them and must be given the opportunity to be heard before the NPC or a subcommittee thereof, appointed for the purpose of considering expulsion. The first two grounds for expulsion are self-explanatory. The last ground -- that a person was “under the discipline of any self-defined democratic centralist organization” -- requires some historical background. Entryism in the 1930s In 1928, the U.S. Communist Party banished a small group of individuals from its ranks on the grounds that they were associates of Leon Trotsky, the Bolshevik leader who had been purged from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union during a factional struggle that had broken out after Lenin’s death. For years, these renegades were spurned by the rest of the U.S. Left while they sought readmission to the CP in vain. By the mid-1930s and the start of the Moscow Trials in the Soviet Union, it was clear that their expulsion would not be reversed, and the Trotskyists began to look for ways out of the political wilderness in which they found themselves. In the American Workers Party (AWP), organized by labor educator A. J. Muste, they saw a path back to relevance. The AWP was an attempt to form a uniquely American revolutionary Marxist party that broke with a U.S. Left whose politics were beholden to different strains of European socialism and communism. In its very brief existence, the AWP had done impressive labor organizing, highlighted by its leadership of the Toledo Auto-Lite strike -- one of the epic work stoppages of the 1930s. Muste was initially skeptical of Trotskyist appeals to combine forces. The AWP was a more substantial organization with deeper roots in the labor movement, and he found the Trotskyist leaders to be dogmatic and uncreative in their politics. Nonetheless, New York intellectuals Sidney Hook and James Burnham convinced him that a merger was a good idea. But Muste did place one condition on agreeing to the merger: that the Workers Party (WP) would not enter the Socialist Party. This was a key point for Muste because the French Trotskyists, acting under the direction of Trotsky himself, had just allied with the French Socialists in a maneuver that came to be known as the “French turn.” After a short stay in the French Socialists, during which they garnered recruits and promoted their politics, the Trotskyists split its ranks, denounced the Socialists, and reorganized as a purely Trotskyist party. Muste was promised that this would not happen in the United States. Almost immediately, the Trotskyists went back on their word, forcing the question of entry into the U.S. Socialist Party. Weakened by the loss of long-term political associates who were unwilling to join forces with the Trotskyists, Muste lost the vote and the Workers Party, now firmly under Trotskyist control, entered the Socialist Party. Once inside, the Trotskyists acted as a “party within a party,” maintaining their own leadership structure (which regularly plotted factional moves within the Socialists) and publishing their own newspaper (which criticized the policies of the Socialist Party and promoted such Trotskyist projects as the founding of a Fourth International). Most important, all of the Trotskyists in the Socialist Party acted as one, under a single organizational discipline: they followed a pre-established “political line” Trotskyist leadership had laid down in all debates and votes inside the Socialist Party. In short order, the Trotskyists forced a split in the Socialists and left with a thousand new members for their Socialist Workers Party (SWP), including much of the Socialists’ youth section. After this stratagem was complete, Trotskyist leader James Patrick Cannon boasted not only of the Trotskyists’ success in growing their numbers, but also of the fact that they had left the Socialist Party in shambles. Cannon took pride in having engineered a major setback for the U.S. Left: By the 1930s, the ranks of the Socialist Party had grown dramatically, making it into a potentially significant force in U.S. politics. But after a series of misjudgments and internal crises, cresting with its disastrous co-habitation with the Trotskyists, the Socialist Party ended the decade as a shadow of its former self. For U.S. socialists of the 1930s, a number of whom would co-found the DSA decades later, this was a searing political ordeal they would not forget. Muste himself was deeply shaken by these events, which he would describe as a violation of “working class ethics,” and he left the Trotskyists. The Trotskyists’ entry into the Socialist Party, organized as a disciplined “party within a party” to garner recruits and split its ranks, established the template for what we now call “entryism” on the U.S. Left. Entryism in the 1960s Entryism is not a practice limited to Trotskyist sects, as the experience of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the 1960s shows. The 1960s were a period of mass upsurge, much like the 1930s and our current time. The civil rights movement and the opposition to the war in Vietnam generated unprecedented levels of political activism among young people, and SDS grew mightily among white students, approaching an estimated 100,000 members at its peak. Much like DSA and the earlier Socialist Party youth section, the vast bulk of the SDS recruits were new to politics, making it a rich hunting grounds for small, disciplined ultra-left groups. One of these was the Progressive Labor Party (PLP). Founded in 1962 after splitting from the Communist Party, PLP was initially supportive of Maoist China but would soon decide that even Mao was insufficiently communist for their tastes. It would then position itself as the most dogmatically Stalinist sect on the U.S. Left. By 1966, PLP was recruiting inside the SDS, where it urged members to adopt its ultra-Stalinist politics and seize control of the SDS organizational infrastructure. PLP’s efforts at taking over SDS set off a destructive cycle, producing counter-factions that included a group that later became the Weathermen. Within a decade, the SDS would be destroyed. Herein lie the dual dangers of entryism. On the one hand, it poses a threat to the organizational integrity of an open and democratic organization. Entryism is the sectarian equivalent to a hostile corporate takeover designed to split or seize control of its target organization. At a minimum, it seeks to poach members new to politics who may not be aware of the stratagem being employed. On the other hand, it disrupts the internal democratic processes of that organization, which depend on members engaging in honest debate and deliberation over policies and political strategies. Entryists enter all debates and votes not with an open mind and a willingness to be persuaded, but with the express intent of advancing a political line that has already been decided in advance. Such tactics can quickly poison democratic political cultures, especially when opponents resort to the kinds of tactics they did in SDS. To be politically effective, democratic socialist organizations need to develop methods of unity in action. These include open and full discussions of issues, democratic decision-making processes, and a commitment by all not to impede or undercut decisions once they have been democratically made. When entryist sects function as a disciplined “party within a party,” they undermine that unity in action. Just as DSA’s founders remembered what the Trotskyists did to the Socialist Party in the 1930s, its first generation of members saw what Progressive Labor did to SDS in the 1960s. Two organizations that gave the Left its best chance to exercise real political power in the U.S. had ended disastrously, in large measure because of sectarian entryism. (These techniques similarly sabotaged a promising national movement of socialist-feminists in the 1970s.) DSA’s Constitution singles out members “under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organizations” for possible expulsion to prevent these very outcomes. The drafters chose their words carefully: they do not specify a political belief or even membership in an organization, instead targeting those who aim to form a “party within a party” like the Trotskyists and the Stalinist PLP before them. This language has everything to do with ensuring the survival of an open, democratic institutions and absolutely nothing to do with “Cold War” politics. The Socialist Alternative understands this, despite its claims to the contrary. After all, SAlt is the progeny of one of the best-known entryist projects in international socialist history, the Militant Tendency of the British Labour Party. From their founding in 1964 to their expulsion in the 1980s, these Trotskyists operated as a disciplined “party within a party” inside of Labour, using the entryist tactics described above. SAlt was founded as Labor Militant in 1986 by members of the British Militant Tendency who had moved to the United States as part of an organized effort to create a Trotskyist international. (It adopted its current name in the late 1990s.) Perhaps unsurprisingly, the organization has splintered into several smaller factions since its founding amid personality conflicts, and there now exist competing internationals, although SAlt remains the largest group in the United States. Why, then, is it trying to join DSA? SAlt’s own statement indicates that it opposes the very strategy that has allowed DSA to grow over the last four years -- campaigns to elect democratic socialists to office, using the Democratic Party ballot line -- so it would be hard to make a case for a political convergence. In this light, SAlt’s call to eliminate any barriers to entryism in DSA constitution is telling. Openings for socialists don’t come along often in United States: only three times in the last 100 years has the Left had a change to make a major political breakthrough. DSA, with its rapid growth and electoral victories, could be central to such a breakthrough. Which is why we must acknowledge the deleterious role entryism played in the radical movements of the 1930s and 1960s. If we are to succeed where past generations have failed, it is vital that we not repeat their mistakes. BILL BARCLAY is an economist who served as Political Secretary of NAM and was a member of its National Committee; he was a member of DSA’s National Political Committee at its founding. LEO CASEY is a teacher unionist who was a member of NAM’s National Committee; he served as the National Field Director of DSA and a member of its National Political Committee at its founding. JACK CLARK is a workforce educator who was the first national organizer of DSOC and member of its National Committee; he was a member of DSA’s National Political Committee at its founding. RICHARD HEALEY is a political organizer and strategist who served as National Director of NAM and was a member of its National Committee; he was a member of NAM’s National Political Committee at its founding. DEBORAH MEIER is an educator who was a Vice-Chair of DSOC and a member of its National Committee; she was a member of DSA’s National Political Committee at its founding. MAXINE PHILLIPS is an editor who served in that role for the national publication of DSOC and DSA, Democratic Left; she was a member of DSA’s National Political Committee at its founding, and would later serve as its Executive Director. CHRIS RIDDIOUGH is a strategic planner in the field of information technology who was a member of NAM’s National Committee; she was a member of DSA’s National Political Committee at its founding, and would later serve as its Executive Director. JOSEPH M. SCHWARTZ is a political scientist who was a national organizer of DSOC’s Youth Section and a member of its National Committee; he was a member of DSA’s National Political Committee at its founding and for many decades after. Comments welcome. Originally published as Opinion, in In These Times. March 30,2021 |
Principles North Star caucus members
antiracismdsa (blog of Duane Campbell) Hatuey's Ashes (blog of José G. Pérez) Authory and Substack of Max Sawicky Left Periodicals Democratic Left Socialist Forum Washington Socialist Jacobin In These Times Dissent Current Affairs Portside Convergence The Nation The American Prospect Jewish Currents Mother Jones The Intercept New Politics Monthly Review n+1 +972 The Baffler Counterpunch Black Agenda Report Dollars and Sense Comrades Organizing Upgrade Justice Democrats Working Families Party Poor People's Campaign Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism Progressive Democrats of America Our Revolution Democracy for America MoveOn Black Lives Matter Movement for Black Lives The Women's March Jewish Voice for Peace J Street National Abortion Rights Action League ACT UP National Organization for Women Sunrise People's Action National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights Dream Defenders |