Our Party

David (Socialist Majority, NYC-DSA) and Ramsin (Bread and Roses, Chicago DSA) discuss their perspectives on party-building, political independence, and the democratic road to socialism.  

Read David’s piece comparing the SPA and DSA, “The Long Reroute,” published by the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung here.

Read Ramsin’s pieces about how and when to advance socialist political independence, here and here.

Become a member of Democratic Socialists of America.

Sign up to receive NPEC's newsletter, Red Letter. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

The iron is hot and we need to strike when it's hot because we need to, in a scientific socialist way, do the experiments that we need to do to figure out what our structural and organizational independence requires. Because even somebody between myself and David on this question would agree that it's going to be iterative and dynamic, which means like we're going to keep building up this independence that David's describing. You know, people are going to be like, hey, yeah, I'm a DSA member, vote for me just because we become stronger and more popular, that's going to happen. Um, and then what's happening now? It is happening. It's it's happening now, right? And so as that happens, the institutions that are threatened by that are not gonna do nothing. They're gonna act. One of the ways they will act is resource denial.

SPEAKER_05 1:01

Hi, comrades, and welcome to CLASS, the podcast of Democratic Socialists of America's National Political Education Committee, or NPEC. My name is Michaela, and I'm chair of NPEC this term and a member of North New Jersey DSA. On this episode, I'll be talking with comrades David and Ramsen about a topic that never seems to get old. The party. Why don't we have an independent socialist or workers' party? Or if you think we do have a socialist party as DSA, why isn't it like past socialist parties? Or if it is like past socialist parties, why aren't we big and powerful? Or or or on it goes. As we continue to act like a party, these debates become more nuanced and touched almost everything we do in DSA, from electoral work to labor to internal democracy. So we won't end the debate here on this episode, but hopefully we'll be adding productively and comradely to it. And I think anyone interested in DSA, whether you're in it or DSA curious, might find something to think about in a new way. David's a member of New York City DSA and the Socialist Majority Caucus, and Ramson is a member of Chicago DSA and the Bread and Roses Caucus, and both of them have written a lot on this topic, pieces of which we'll be referring to throughout the conversation and will be linked in our show notes. Before we dive in, a reminder that class is available on all major podcast platforms. Please consider becoming a DSA member by following the link in the podcast description. You can also send us a message about the episode and sign up for Red Letter and PEC's monthly newsletter using the provided links. Welcome to class, David and Ramson.

SPEAKER_01 2:35

Thank you for having me, and very excited to be here.

unknown 2:39

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 2:40

Thanks for having me.

SPEAKER_00 2:41

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 2:42

Of course, yeah. Excited about this conversation. But everyone has to ask this be asked the same question at the beginning. So you both haven't been on yet. You have to do it. Why and how did you become a socialist? And why and how did you join DSA? David, you can go first if you want.

SPEAKER_01 3:00

Okay. Um, so hi everybody. Uh thanks again, Michaela, for having us. Um excited to talk to both of you, good friends. Um, I joined DSA and I basically spent my whole adult life in DSA in 2003. Uh, I grew up in a socialist household. Um, my parents were sympathetic to DSA, but not members then. And they my dad was involved in political activity in Chile during the government of Salvador Allende and was exiled here and was very appreciative to DSOC, one of DSA's predecessor groups, for its work with him. And my mother was also involved in Chile's solidarity. So I grew up kind of around the anti-imperialism and also viewing socialism as a real movement of people. But I, you know, socialist movement was very weak when I was younger, so I didn't feel compelled to join any group, I said, until I was like an adult. And I found DSA to be the most compatible. I got involved in what what is now the young democratic socialist of America, um, and so forth. And I've just really been this has been my political home for the past two decades.

SPEAKER_05 4:04

Wow. You're an old schooler. Big time.

SPEAKER_01 4:07

Cool.

SPEAKER_05 4:07

Uh Ramsa, what about you? How'd you how'd you become a socialist? And did that predius uh did that was that before you joined DSA?

SPEAKER_00 4:15

Um I so I I I grew up in a first generation household where you know socialism wasn't necessarily a bad word, but it wasn't a very taken seriously word. Um but uh my you know, I I worked um for a at a union as an organization not long after sort of becoming an adult and going out on my own and and had some other jobs in sort of the organizing sphere, progressive sphere. And this was in the early 2000s. You know, I I had heard of DSA at that time, you know, growing up in Chicago and working in Chicago. Uh there was there was a lively chapter here, but it was very small. And frankly, uh my experience with other socialist groups and sects um was not positive at that time. And so uh it and so it wasn't really uh organizationally something I would want to do is join a socialist organization. Um it wasn't until 2016. Yeah, I had done a lot of progressive organizing, progressive world organizing, mostly union organizing, community organizing stuff, um independently. But um it wasn't until 2016 that I joined uh DSA um as as the organization exploded and as someone who was a little older than the joining profile at the time, and who had um and who had at that point, you know, 20 years almost of experience organizing in Chicago. I felt like you know I could be useful um uh you know as as somebody who'd been around the block sort of.

SPEAKER_05 5:54

And you're still here, so they've gone they they haven't gotten all the use out of you yet. Or we we collectively haven't gotten all the use out of you yet. Um and yes, thank you both so much for being here. I think this is gonna be a really productive conversation. Um, as I mentioned, we'll be talking about some of the works that you've done. Um David, you wrote a piece called The Long Reroute that was published by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation here in the US. They have an office here in New York. Um, and it is an outline of the similarities or the sort of like connections, continuities between the Socialist Party of America, which was Eugene Debs um party, and DSA. And you kind of link that up with how we see ourselves now, right? Um and uh Ramsey, you have written um for the outlet Midwest Socialist, which is uh Chicago DSA's kind of um great uh publication online um a couple of times about um independence, political independence, and most recently about running somebody independently um in Chicago, who's uh someone who I hope you get a chance to talk about. Byron, who's a member of Chicago DSA, current older person, and will be running for Congress. Um and it's pretty exciting stuff because you know, David, you've been in DSA a long time, and I'm sure when people you would they would have been thought thinking this was an insane idea, right? Um, even just a couple of years ago. Um, but now it seems like this is the next move. But before we move into all of that, um, because it's going to be a very rich conversation, maybe just like a little bit of like grounding to talk to our audience about what you think a party's for. Because most people in the US experience parties as one of two teams you support every two to four years with pretty confusing rules state by state about how you're allowed to run in elections, how you're allowed to vote in elections. Um, and there's no real everyday connection to it for most people, right? Um, it's really hard to figure out actually like what a Democratic Party anything is, right? It's kind of hidden in a lot of ways, unless you're a real political head and then you're kind of like sucked into it, right? But for most everyday people, it's just not something they think about except when they vote, um, if that, if that at all. There's actually a plurality of Americans um pretty consistently that are unaffiliated, unenrolled, or otherwise independent, um, which can mean a variety of things. Um But in your views, what should a party do or be for? Ramson, maybe you can take this one first um and just kind of go back and forth like that.

SPEAKER_00 8:37

Sure. Um what should a what should a socialist party be for? Or what should a party be for?

SPEAKER_05 8:42

Any party, really. Um, but then a socialist party obviously is appropriate for this conversation.

SPEAKER_00 8:48

Uh uh a party is a a party is an organizational expression of a group interest. Um, and that goes back to Roman times, you know, there was plebeian parties and whatever optimates parties and all that stuff that you know I'm sure there's podcasts about.

SPEAKER_05 9:04

But um not this one.

SPEAKER_00 9:07

But the uh, you know, that's that's essentially what we're talking about. It's it's just it's it's an organizational expression of a group interest. Um and so what the party should be for is to uh um be the the mechanism through which that group acts. Um it has to act through something. It can't uh it's fundamental, I think, to the idea of uh uh political power that uh you can't act except through concerted activity, but also uh it has to be conscious and it has to be organized. The idea that you will get change through the aggregate of individual choices is something that you know libertarians may believe and certain capitalists may believe, um, or at least tell us they believe, but uh it it doesn't really bear out. Uh change does happen uh uh on the basis of the accumulation of individual choices, but not uh not the political change that expresses a group decided interest. Um and so you know I think it's really as simple as that. Which of the party before? The party should be the the mechanism through which a group decides on its interests and then expresses it um and pursues it.

SPEAKER_05 10:18

Uh David, what about you?

SPEAKER_01 10:20

Yeah, I think just to build off that because I think it sums it up well, I think one of the kind of tensions and uh is one way to describe it, or like debate or focal points in the debates is um what then does that party mean legally too? And so I think like I would totally agree with uh Ramson's point about a party's an expression of interests, and so like what we would distinguish that between a union. I think we would say here is like a union would be like uh workers in a particular industry or workplace expressing their interests versus just members in society um expressing a political interest. But I agree there too, where it's like we don't think that like workers can make individual change in the same way that they can do collectively, so it's why we have these organizations. So what I kind of view the two main parties as you were uh talking about, Michaela, is like they mean they're not really parties, they're like brands, um, in the sense that people are like, I'm a Democrat, I'm a Republican, but they're not really members of anything. And those organizations themselves, those brands really have like different formations that aren't necessarily connected in the way that like a party would be in another country, or that's much more top-down and much more like what DSA is, where DSA is much looks much more like a party in another country in terms of like how decisions are made, how it's structured, how it's consistent. And I think one example I'll give is that I was thinking about this recently when in Michaela's chapter, North New Jersey DSA, when I was talking to someone, I said, like, you know, when I was recruiting people in New York to volunteer for the North New Jersey DSA candidates, it never came up like, where do they stand? What do they believe? Because there's such an understanding of like what a DSA candidate means to another DSA, or especially one who's been endorsed, so they've already gone through this process, so people can trust. So it's more like, am I free that weekend? Where that wouldn't be the same case with the Democrat, quote unquote Democrat, because people are like, well, I don't know if that's a good Democrat. I don't know who that person is, you know, and it's like so it's like a much standard DSA is a very standardized view, even if it doesn't feel that way because we're debating all the time, um, which I think is what we would want a party to be. And I think then we get to the questions which we will later is like, is DSA the party we want it to be now? And we don't have to worry, which is kind of where I am if you were to take the extreme view of my position, or do we actually need to become something much more independent in our electoral views?

SPEAKER_05 12:49

Yeah, I think this is actually an interesting debate within our organization because there's a lot of people who are like on a basic minimal level, DSA is already a party. We're deciding to work together in order to achieve these things. And then not this last convention, but the convention before, we passed this resolution called Act Like an Independent Party, which of course has act-like, which has a simile within it, which means are we one? Well, maybe it doesn't matter. We don't have to debate that right now. What we have to do instead is start building up the idea of party-like activity within DSA rather than it being kind of someone, um a comrade in another caucus mentioned that it's 200 chapters in a trench coat. Um, you know, like acting kind of like we have DSA on the tin, but we're all kind of different inside. Whereas acting in a more unified manner, in a more national manner, is what most people think of a party. And I think, David, what you pointed out, which is that the lack of trust in the Democratic Party, the lack of not just unity, but also the sense that the politician is acting in their own interests and not in the interests of the party all the time, right? And then, of course, as socialists, we have a view about whether there is a, you know, a real difference, quote unquote, between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the fact that we also think they're they're all acting in the interests of capital, right? They're all acting in the interests of ruling class. So, you know, to the to the sense that in DSA we're kind of like debating these questions, the questions are productive precisely because when we talk about the party, we're also talking about how do we work together in order to achieve our goals and know that we can go to any place and know that they're gonna believe what we believe, right? Um, on a on not just a basic level, but also in maybe even more detailed ways.

SPEAKER_00 14:49

I mean, I think there's we we keep running into I mean, part of the thing about this debate and discussion is we we run into these definitional issues constantly. Uh also we look at the problem at different levels, you know, uh at a macro level, it's one question on a micro level, and then all the places in between. So, for example, the um the scenario David just raised where he was in New York recruiting for North Jersey Diaz say, um I could, I would, I think you could probably end up with the same thing if you had somebody who moved from one state to another and they were going to vote and they didn't really know the candidates on the ballot, but they saw one was a Republican and one was a Democrat, and they had to make a decision in the moment. Um, now that's just voting, it's not necessarily going to volunteer, but nevertheless, the implication there is well, the person who's on the Democratic line went through a process, a primary process, arguably a more broad process than an internal party process. Um, so you know, that voter might think, well, uh, you know, uh I know enough about this person simply by the fact that they're appearing on this ballot line that I'm gonna choose them over this next, like what is clearly the worst option to me. Um and you know, that's it, that's at a very high level. Um and then, you know, there's there's there's also questions about like, well, are these things parties? Well, they're not parties the way the parties are, like the Democrats and Republicans, they're not parties the way they are in Europe. On the other hand, they are sort of facsimiles in the sense that they they are not just a ballot line because they do have institutional structures, um, some that require loyalty. Um, so for example, to belong to certain state parties or county parties as an elected official, you have to fundraise a certain amount for them to retain access to the ballot line or to get funds and support for institutional support from those parties. In every state, you'll have a variety of legislative caucus party uh caucuses that have their own fundraising and elected leadership, and the same with county-level organizations. So it's not like they're just about a brand that's bereft of any institutional uh makeup. Um and that blacks any, I mean, some of those institutions and organizations have some internal democracy to them. They're not great, you know, they're not what we would consider a real democratic uh system, especially not a mass party, but they do have some ways of making their own internal decisions, setting platforms, you know, endorsing candidates, all that stuff. So in a way, they are parties that are just more frustrating because as David said, in the European model, they're more top-down. And David, I don't know if they're top-down. I would say they're they're just more coherent.

SPEAKER_02 17:37

They're more I think I would agree with that. That's right. I'm what I have more.

SPEAKER_00 17:40

Yeah, yeah. Like they have a visible organizational tree that you could point to and say this person is in charge of this. Whereas in in the United States, it's more chaotic. Actually, it's kind of more reflective of our sort of laissez-affaires approach to everything, which is that you know, there's these different institutions and organizations within that call themselves Democrats or Republicans that are having to compete with each other sometimes, cooperate with each other other times. In some states, the county parties are very strong. In other states, the congressional level party institutions are very strong. In some places, it's the state level. Some places it's one senator that you know has the big uh fundraising mechanism or a legislative leader or something. So, you know, there are party-like institutions and organizations that lend that that comprise something, whether it's quite a party or not, or if each one is a party, you know, it's that's that that's what I mean when I say this definitional problem keeps rearing its head.

SPEAKER_05 18:39

David, I'm I'm interested in what you have to say about that, but I think it's interesting, Ramson, that you said it's more chaotic here, even though we only really have two parties, and in Europe there's a million, you know, like um, and because our system requires this kind of uh lesser of two evils approach that you mentioned people going to the ballot line not knowing much, but they at least know, well, at least I know this isn't that or whatever happens to be. And that can be a very um kind of socialized, cultural impression, impressionistic approach if you're not someone who really knows. And the fundraising stuff really, I mean, that's that requires like maybe a whole other podcast to just talk about that. Um, and you mentioned money in one of your articles um and like the raising of money and kind of like this sort of granular uh equation of what it means to actually try to run someone independently, which we're gonna get to in a second. But David, interested in what you have to say to Ramson, kind of like, you know, do we have a definitional problem or can we just call them all parties and just say the one we want to make is not gonna be like that?

SPEAKER_01 19:43

No, I think we do have a definitional problem. And I think he's he so I'm trying to think about not just say I agree with this and that. I think where what I will agree with, though, I think is really important. I think what I was saying, if it didn't come out correctly, is like when I say it's a brand, it doesn't mean that these independent organizations, like when I'm thinking like ones we commonly know, like the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Coordinating Committee, to down to what you know would be the Brooklyn Democratic Party or the Cook County uh Democratic Party, to also these independent clubs that are really important. I can't don't I don't have any experience in Chicago, but they're incredibly important in New York, or historically not as much now, which we can get into, but those all are in this ecosystem that is confused. And I think what I feel our comrade Paul uh Heideman made a really good contribution to this looking at the other party, the Republican Party, in his new book, Um Rogue Elephant, where one of the things he really made clear though is like it used to be even more incoherent because both parties used to have like a liberal and conservative wing. That's not as much the case anymore. Um, and I think that what he also brought up, which is the fundraising, is actually the parties are now even weaker because of well-meaning campaign finance reform that doesn't always actually result. Marjorie Taylor Green and AOC can raise so much money and don't have to go through the party coffers in the same way that they used the even congressional candidates had to. So they're even the parties, these quote unquote parties are even weaker than they used to be, and I don't see a trajectory with them getting stronger. Which is why I think what I distinguish when I talk about this independence is between pessimism and cynicism, where I'm pessimistic about the prospects of this kind of independence we're talking about. Not because I because if I was cynical about it, I would think, oh, it's a bad thing, we shouldn't even talk about it. I'm actually very excited about Byron's run, I want to hear more about it. But I'm pessimistic in that like I just see this very weak party structure. I feel it's very, and I feel like the path what we've been doing is kind of working. And so I've kind of always like, if it's to be simple, if it's not broken, don't fix it, kind of attitude for me, at least in the short term.

SPEAKER_05 21:42

Well, that's a perfect time to talk about it then, because um, as we know, Ramson has written very strenuously and strongly in sp in relation to specific um like structures, events, you know, about independence. So why does the working class Need political independence in order to obtain its objectives. And this this might also be a question about why now, right? Like what, like, like what's like with the timing issue, which the title, I think, if I recall correctly, Ramson, is the time is now for an independent run. And so that was written in January. We are in the middle of it. So let's get into it, Rams. Go ahead and and maybe give a little bit of a taste of what your theory is and kind of like how you're traveling through it. And like, what is this political independence? Why is it important for the working class? Why is it important for socialists to support working class political independence through a party?

SPEAKER_00 22:37

I think, I think the idea is fairly simple. I mean, it starts with with a Marxist concept of class, the the working class in itself, and then the working class for itself. The working class in itself is the category. The working class has to become a a class in itself. Um then the class has to then be able to act for itself, for its own interest, right? Um so first the class has to see itself. The people in it, the people who make it up, you know, we have to see ourselves as a class with unified interests. We have to see that. Um how can it do that if it's entwined with its class enemies? Um, then the class has to act for itself, in its own interest. If our interests are fundamentally defined by how they harm or are to the detriment of our class enemies, how can we act for our interests alongside the segments of society we conflict with? So to be less abstract, people in the class to see themselves there has to be as little mediation and filtering by other institutions as possible. What that means is the the party needs to be composed of people acting together directly, people should have experience of their efforts affecting the world. Um the party has to be able to communicate to its constituencies directly and intake feedback from its constituencies directly and intake knowledge from them directly. So as little intermediation as possible. If the party in New York or Chicago or Los Angeles or not one of the three biggest cities in the country uh is acting, um Union City, New Jersey. Yeah, there you go. Um it needs to speak to the working class of that area as much as possible directly, not mediated through other organizations, other institutions, power brokers of any kind. Um, and when it is acting, it has to get feedback on what it's doing from that constituent those constituencies directly, not by tastemakers or intermediated institutions. It has to be able to take in that information and metabolize it in itself as directly as possible. Otherwise, it will always be in a cycle of drifting away from the work from the working class constituency that it relies on. So it has so for a class to be for itself, it has to make decisions independent of resource decisions. It does not decide for itself. So what that means is it's fundamental to independence. And this isn't not this is not just for the working class or socialist parties, but really all liberation movements when you think about it. It it means to make decisions independent of uh of the resource decisions of others means the working class has to has to resource itself from within. And if it's resourcing itself with from within, what's entailed is that because the resources are coming from within, they can't be mobilized except with democratic decision making that's both formal and participatory. So the organization does not rely on any outside source significantly for the resources it needs to act. All of the resources are more or less coming from within. That means people have to make the decision. This is what we are going to do as a group, and then people actually have to do it. They have to actually do the decision. You know, we're gonna campaign for this candidate, we're going to support this strike, we're gonna boycott this company, we're gonna whatever. Um, that decision has to be made because otherwise the resources won't get mobilized. If the resources are external, too much, then the people who maintain the relationships with those external institutions and organizations become the people who decide whether those resources move. And that is what will determine the direction of the organization. So it's it's a very, it's it's it's not a big ideological sort of like we need to be independent, you know, some abstract theory. It's a very concrete and material issue about when we make a decision, will we stick with it? How do we make it? And will it actually move the resources we need to move to win? Will we ever be completely self-reliant? No. Do we will we ever be do we have to become like a commune that's untethered from the world first before we're a party? Absolutely not. But we do understand that the resources have to come from within for us to truly be able to act for ourselves. And for that to be the case, there has to be a little intermediation between the party and its constituency, and there has to be as little reliance on outside resources not controlled by the party as possible.

unknown 27:33

All right.

SPEAKER_05 27:34

Why can't that just happen if you have somebody? This is a devil's advocate. I'm not, I'm I'm just a devil's advocate here. Um, why can't that just happen in the left wing of the Democratic Party then? For example, you just brought up AOC, or let's say Zoran, right? Like he was able to get, as you mentioned, Ramson, um, you know, tens of thousands of people to um throw in for his campaign when he said, I'm not taking corporate donations, but also, you know, this is a movement that belongs to all of us. But he was running for the Democratic, the Democratic nomination. And some criticism has come up um of him over the past few months about him referring to the Democratic Party as our party. Um, we won't get into that. This is not a Zaron trashing session or a Zaron valorizing session. But be that as it may, this question of acting independently or acting, mobilizing, deciding, um, the Democrats at least say that they're a big tent, that they can include everyone. Um, and this is a two-parter, right? Like I want to hear what David has to say about this because I think that if I if I get you correctly, David, you're kind of saying DSA is already doing this, but we don't have to break, right? We don't have to act technically independently in order for this to happen. But then there's also the question of defending our independence within or from all these other actors, right? Because there's not just the Democratic Party, there's also NGOs, there's all of these other groups that might see a talented DSA elected, or they might see a social movement within DSA like sort of taking off and think, now that's a base there. Like that's that's something I can tap. So, David, please hold forth on all of this. I I want to know about like what it means to act like a party in this way that doesn't require independence. Um, and then yeah, we'll just go from there.

SPEAKER_01 29:33

Let's go from there. Um, so what I think Ramson laid out is kind of like, at least for me, hard to argue with because we're this is where I think we're getting to the definitional problems and not talking past each other because this is a great comradely discussion, but like where does so we want to get to like where does the rubber hit the road where or where does at least the diverge. And so again, what I'd say like on the simplest level, I think what he described is what Michaela Bieber saying is like for me, that's like sounds a lot like DSA right now. Um that certainly sounds a lot more like DSA or trade union than the Democratic Party or these NGOs that are obstensibly membership organizations. Um, where I think we start where I also see some of your concerns. I think that you were outlining, maybe they're not your concerns, Caleb, but you're outlining them. Where I will say, for example, let's look at New York. There are, you know, these are great socialists in office, there are great socialists in office who candidates who are socialist candidates who are endorsed by DSA. There's also DSA members who are running who aren't endorsed at all. And like, and that's where we start acting more, unfortunately, like these Democratic-Republican, more traditional US parties. And I think one of the funniest tidbits is like Diana Moreno, who just recently won the assembly seat to replace Zoran, her two opponents in the special election were DSA members. I mean, it was just like it was everyone was a DSA member. Only one, only she had the endorsement. Uh, but it it but that's so I think that also gets to like the problem that even I would say is like, well, what is the point? Well, we have to have some coherent thing that means to be a DSA member where people at least I think we're I think I hope we'd assume we agree here, but I shouldn't assume anything that like we would want people to be like, oh I lost, I didn't get the endorsement, I won't run. Like even I'm I'm I'm there, I'm there. Like I think I don't think I think people, if people want to run and not get the endorsement, so long as they're not running against someone, you know, Dianu, but whatever they want to do, that's fine. But I think if you so you're the someone's endorsed DSA candidate, you shouldn't run against them. Where I kind of, you know, just for the sake of argument, will you know take my be honest about my opinion, it's like I just like feel that we are at this point where it's like it's just better to build DSA in the short term, get us to like half a million people, which would be our proportional to what we would be if we were the Socialist Party of America. And the part, well, I'll wait for that my part to say that, but half a million is a lot of people. It's we're you know, we just for the first time in my life, we broke a hundred thousand. That's that's pretty historic. So I think there's still a lot of room to grow. And that I still that's and I still think being a faction officially or unofficially within the Democratic Party coalition for now makes sense. And that I think it's one thing we would do as we get bigger is we would strengthen our you know discipline. We would also make it so that people, as you couldn't get picked off, that it would be much more of an institution unto itself. Um, and that's that goes through strength. So that's why I still think we're in this short-term stage where if it's not broke, don't fix it. Like I think, and why I describe it as the dirty stay is that because it's not a comfortable position to be in. It's not like, oh, this is great. Like, whereas realignment's like, here's our coherent strategy about how we're going to transform the Democratic Party into a social democratic party. But a part that's always forgotten about realignment that did happen is that it was loot that I mentioned earlier, was that the parties did polarize, which is one that which is that the Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally much more opposed to each other than they were 30 or 40 years ago, where there was much where there were liberal and conservative wings and parties, and you would see, and that's where we get this reification of bipartisanship that I can't stand because it's totally from a fossilized different period. Um, and it I don't think bipartisanship is something that we should be looking for. We should actually be looking for more tensions uh between the parties. Um, but that's why I think in the short term, I think we are achieving political independence. And for me, the independence like I'm more concerned about personally is like in the trade union movement, as a trade unionist, where I do see a lot more class collaboration um between unions, and that's why I'm more sympathetic than I was when I was younger to like the rank and file strategy, where I don't feel the same way. We can and we'll get into it about like the ballot line where I've actually where at one point I was probably closer to you guys about 10 years ago, and then I shifted back to kind of where I'd been when I was younger to where I am today.

SPEAKER_00 33:51

I think I think um that that that's all well said and and and welcome news about the rank and file strategy. But um I I would also say that in in terms of you know, in in that article that you referenced, Michaela, I said the time is now. And when I said the time is now, I didn't mean the time to do a complete break and never run on the Democratic ballot the Democratic Party ballot line again. Instead, what it what I what that meant was the iron is hot and we need to strike when it's hot because we need to, in a scientific socialist way, do the experiments that we need to do to figure out what our structural and organizational independence requires. Because even somebody between myself and David on this question would agree that it's gonna be iterative and dynamic, which means like we're gonna keep building up this independence that David's describing. You know, people are gonna be like, hey, yeah, I'm a DSA member, vote for me just because we become stronger and more popular, that's gonna happen. Um, and then what happens happening now?

SPEAKER_04 34:53

It is happening.

SPEAKER_00 34:55

It's it's happening now, right? And so as that happens, the institutions that are threatened by that are not gonna do nothing. They're gonna act. One of the ways they will act is resource denial, and resource denial happens in a lot of different ways. It happens, money is a big one, but it's not just money, it's also reputational damage. It's um, you know, forming alternative entities that are literally meant to just sap our strength and energy and time. Databases, databases, tools, and so we in a sense, it's like we don't even know what the problems and challenges will be until we try in strategically smart areas to say, let's run completely separate as much as we can. Let's experiment with the resource denial. Because in a place like Chicago, and I think in a lot of places across the country, you know, David mentioned uh, you know, the trade union movement. There's a lot of places where there's a central labor labor council in a city and they have strong relationships with the Democratic Party there. There's good historical reasons for them to have those strong relationships. There's a lot of overlap of personnel. People go from working for the union, working for the party to go working for elected officials. They know each other, they work together. Now all of a sudden you have this insurgent group that comes in running a candidate outside of the ballot line, and you know, they're gonna say, no, we're we're gonna box you out, you're not gonna get our endorsement. We're we might not even let you come for the interview. Who knows what they'll say? Um, what do we do in that situation where we've been denied that institutional support that historically is critical? What do we how do we handle the lack of access to a database? How do we handle not being able to use Act Blue or whatever? We won't know, we won't be able to experiment with methods to cope with that challenge and those coming challenges until we try and identify our blind spots and weak spots. This district in Illinois is perfect for this because the person Byron Siggio Lopez is running against is a progressive. By her record, working for a very popular progressive, she actually has not held elected office, but presumptively she's a progressive. Her stated issue opinions are uh opinions on issues are progressive, et cetera, et cetera. Um, Byron is an elected official who has a history in the district, he has some visibility. Every vote that comes his way will be a vote for a socialist, not against a scumbag conservative Democrat, because that's not her record. So we will be identifying, we will be able to find a number in a base. Here are people who they had a choice between a progressive Democrat and somebody who's like, I'm not a Democrat, I am a socialist, I am something different. And they made that choice for us. That is immensely valuable information on top of the mechanical things we we'd learn. So when I say the time is now, this we have to do these experiments so that we can develop the muscles and the skills and the organizational capacity and the knowledge to be completely independent, one way or the other, whether that's using somebody else's ball line, whatever we do, one way or another, institutionally and organizationally, we have to have those resources coming from within, like I was saying earlier.

SPEAKER_05 38:05

Yeah, I won't if David, if you have a response, um, great. But I just wanted to clarify a couple of terms for those who might be listening and who are not informed on all of the ins and outs of the so-called dirty break and dirty stay. So the dirty break is the idea that we run on the Democratic ballot line as open socialist class struggle uh candidates um opposing uh the Democratic Party. That's the dirty part, right? We're not nice about it. We're not, um, and then we'll either, this is a very, very um sort of potted version of this, but we'll either get kicked out or denied resources, right? Essentially kicked out, or we'll be able to leave, right? Um, you know, though that's the kind of like suspension of activity that that is happening. And as we get bigger, stronger, challenge Democrats um in ways that maybe are surprising for some, why would you run against this great progressive, right? Those kinds of things sort of build up. That's the kind of break, right? So if what I'm hearing from Ramsey, it's like this is actually a continuity with the dirty break, like running independence strategically in order to test the break, right? Like and in order to test kind of the ways in which the Democratic Party, because of all of the funding, all of the sort of internal apparatus, the so-called machine, um, in all of these places. I mean, the Democratic Party machine is kind of a nickname that was slapped on it in the 1800s and the early 1900s to talk about the way in which you got people to vote for the party. But the machine of it is actually about these internal apparatuses and the ways in which it kind of is like you can use this to do politics so long as we let you, right? Um, you can use this machine to kind of like get where you are, even if you're not totally within. The dirty stay, David, maybe you can extrapolate a little bit more. But like what you said is that it's like staying within the Democratic Party, not in order to change it, but in order to continue to use this stuff. So it's like they're very close in a way. But I think that there is this like strain of tension that is obviously why we're talking about this today, because it is also about how loudly and how um sort of strategically uh solid or like you know, concrete are we gonna make this independence, right? This this demand for political independence. But David, if you um had something to sort of wrap up and then we'll yeah, I'll just wrap up.

SPEAKER_01 40:35

And I think you described the dirty state well in that like these are real debates, though there's a lot of similarity. But I think what it gets to is a real debate within the organization for our own resources and our own time, and our time is a resource to be corny about it, but it's true. And that like for me, this is what Ramsey is describing, is not a priority of mine, and I give a political articulation why. And so to be specific to kind of my own changes on this, where it's like I remember I because I'm writing, I'm reflecting on Shama Swant is running for Congress. She's like, and I've just been like reflecting on my her my viewing her over the past dozen years, you know, it was very exciting when she won. And it was, and it was like we were like, wow, maybe, and it was causing people like me in 2013 and 14 to question. And I wrote something in Jacobin very similar to what Rams is talking about, but different. But I was like, why aren't we like running socialists independently in blue cities? Like just against to see how it goes. I changed because I saw in New York when the DSA did that, the chapter did it for Jabari Brisport, and that socialist line got like which took a lot of petitioning time to get, like, was kind of forgotten. And that that's kind of where I'm at. It's just like it's just not a huge priority for me, and I just think it's a lot of time. But I will, and so that's why I wouldn't do it. I do think though, it is I agree that of course it would be an interpretive, it would be interesting data points to get. I will donate to Byron's campaign if I'm willing to say that, uh, to see how it goes and act a good thing. It's on the record now. But but I but I'm just like that's why I'm saying I'm pessimistic, not cynical, because I think it's worth doing, but I'm pessimistic in that in the short term it's really gonna change anything. And I'd be curious, for example, if Byron won, would he have to then register as a Democrat or would he just put up with challenges like V Vito Marcantonio, a famous New York City congressman, did for years and years, who was able to for at least some time defeat both parties. But these are questions I I would be grappling with too, if I'm grappling with it myself, about like what would happen if Byron, I would hope, wins, like what would happen in the future too? And I think that would actually be a very interesting data point we'll see there as well.

SPEAKER_05 42:44

We can talk about that. I just wanted to also note though that the the question of pessimism or cynicism, you didn't say maybe you didn't say cynic, you said pessimistic, not cynical.

SPEAKER_02 42:56

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_05 42:57

Um that's kind of what we do in DSA, right? Like, I mean, we we are a democratic organization, like fundamentally. And so whenever people express like their disagreement um about something and say, I'm not sure if this is gonna work, and that's why I'm gonna vote not to do it this way. But Byron's doing it. Like is it like that that that horse has left the barn. So this question, uh Ramson, of what will happen. I mean, I think that what you mentioned is the scientific socialist approach, thought broadly, is also about these experiments, right? The and the the willingness of people to sacrifice their resources or use or like enthusiastically donate, we'll say, including time, which is Marxist, we know, is definitely a resource. It's the resource out of which everything comes. Um, I think that makes a lot of the difference here, right? It's like Chicago DSA wants to do this and is, you know, going to the mat for this to happen, right? Not everyone necessarily, but enough to where they. You know, he won the endorsement. And that I think that the DSA endorsement process has also um really evolved over time to try to ensure that even a democratic run on a ballot line is an experiment if you're running a socialist, you know, especially in some places, right? Some places it's like, whoa, this has never happened, right? Um, here in in uh in um in Jersey, in in Hudson County, Jersey City, um, you mentioned it, uh, David, but we had two independent uh socialist campaigns because they were running on the same slate. One was completely independent and one was running on a mayoral slate. They both won. They both won handily. Um, and a big part of it was the socialist messaging um and saying, you know, like we're different, right? And and and it was a huge amount of resources that that our chapter put in, mostly um people power, mostly going out and actually talking to people about these new people, because it wouldn't have happened otherwise. The machine in in Jersey is mighty. And um, we, you know, a hundred years uh ago was the last time a socialist was elected in New Jersey. And these were two in one election. So to the extent that I kind of am hearing a lot of meeting of the minds here, where it's like, you know, we're not advocating for a leave, and then you're like, I'm not advocating for a stay no matter what. A lot of that is also, I think, about DSA, right? It's about what DSA is, what kind of thing it is. And what it is, is a party-like structure or party, depending on what you think, that you can't really run successfully without getting a ton of DSA members out for you as an endorsed candidate. Um, not not these days. Um, Ramson, did you want to um say anything in response to any of that?

SPEAKER_00 45:57

Uh yeah, I'll just be very brief. I think um the tension a little bit is when we say when we say experiments and scientific socials and all that stuff, um, and and this this kind of is is where I would probably agree with David, or maybe I don't want to put words in David's mouth, but maybe we would agree. But um experimenting doesn't mean saying yes to everything. Yes and is a principle of improv comedy, not of science. Um and uh so you know, you have to make your decisions reasoned. But the other part of that is a big part of the reason I'm in DSA, and uh, you know, maybe you as well, Michaela, and I think a lot of people, is because people like David and Neil Meyer and other people we could name did a lot of work when it was very thankless and very anonymous to keep the organization alive, to do reading groups that were probably very poorly attended. Um, and because of that work and the long-term vision of it, a lot of people ended up joining this organization and building the core of the membership that has now helped the organization grow and in fact explode. And so our investment has to be patient, to use a term from finance, patient capital. Yes, uh, we will we will we will do this experiment for a reasoned purpose. We will have specific outcomes that we want to see and understand better. Um will it will it be a slam dunk or a home run? Probably not. Will it create the knowledge, the experience, the cadre that will form the structure and the skeleton for what we know has to come afterwards? Almost certainly, even if we fail, if we do it right and if we preserve the institutional knowledge and and um develop the skills that come out of it and all the rest of that stuff, it will benefit the movement. It'll benefit the party. And so, you know, I think that's the critical, that's the critical component of what we mean when we talk about these experiments.

SPEAKER_05 47:59

Thank you. That actually leads beautifully into discussion of David's article. Um, I don't know if that was intended, but um we mentioned before that David has written this article, the long reroute. And it was written last summer, right? It was written in the lead up to our convention, which we have every two years on odd years in usually August, um, where we decide on all of our national priorities. We elect our national leadership. Um, and of course, now that we are at 100,000, you know, it's becoming even more and more important if we're thinking about this in terms of what is the party, right? Like um the convention is, you know, it's not just a sideshow. It's it actually like really does, especially aggregated over time, point in a direction, you know. Um, just a little side note is that we adopted a resolution that I wrote called Workers Deserve More Forever, which takes uh the program that is this sort of minimal but in more detail program agrees to revise it on the basis of convention and then put it out as our program um every year, unless we decide not to in 2027. But David, your article um is kind of like a long essay, and you write, you say you write it for two reasons, kind of for existing DSA members, um, to kind of know, like, hey, this is the organization that you got into, and here's kind of my thoughts about I've been around, but also for everyone to know, you know, what is the continuity between the Socialist Party of America, um, which became the so Social Democrats um and then died in 20, 2007, I think you said. So it kind of like faded out, you know, it was this big party, um, relatively speaking. And then over time, for the reasons that we know, you know, socialism kind of was anathema, um could say, to politics for for several decades. Um, and then it, you know, declined. You wrote this, you know, sort of for these couple of reasons, but I I kind of want to know, like, why should we care what the SPA was like? Like what, like, what is it about like knowing about the Socialist Party of America that's gonna tell us anything about whether or not we think DSA is a party-like structure or the party? Um, what is what good does it do us? And then also, you know, I'd like you to maybe give a little bit of a better summary of it than I just kind of like overviewed. But like what lesson should we learn, or like what are the sort of do's and don'ts? And then we can kind of talk about it as like uh how it informs this question of like what's a party for.

SPEAKER_01 50:44

Yeah, and I definitely want to have a discussion um about the essay, but I'll give you I'll give a sh uh uh an overview that you started. So I specifically though, I looked at the the socialist party of Eugene Debs. So really the beginning of the party from 1901 to about the end of the first war, world war, and the new DSA. And but I think what help would help the listeners understand uh the purpose of the piece is actually the title is called The Long Reroute, because which is an homage to this book I read when I was a young man by Jimmy Weinstein, who was the founder of the In These Times, um the socialist magazine, who read this thing called The Long Detour. And he was talking about his book was about like how socialism kind of became you know forgotten uh in the United States or its legacies. And what I point to in my research is that DSA today is actually much more like the Socialist Party of America, and why that matters ultimately is that like nothing is new under the sun. And actually the detour has been like the DSA that I knew that uh Ramson was alluding to, which was very not homogeneous in ideology, but like there were no caucuses, it was pretty much people going through the motions. Like, that's that's an that's a that's actually the abnormal part of like socialist history. It's but a socialist organization is gonna be much more dynamic and have lots of fighting. And I think so. One is to push back on the like kind of Cassandras, for lack of for lack of a better term, who are like, oh my god, people are fighting, the organization's gonna die. And I'm like, well, actually, it's probably reflects that it's pretty healthy that people are fighting and the organization hasn't blown up.

SPEAKER_05 52:23

Let's say there's a healthy culture of debate.

SPEAKER_01 52:25

Yes, there's a healthy culture of debate.

SPEAKER_00 52:27

Healthy culture debate. Um David, Cassandra was right.

SPEAKER_01 52:32

So fair enough, fair enough. So they're not Cassandra's. Yeah, they're okay. Um fair enough. Uh but okay, the the doomsdayers or the naysayers. Um so the so and I think that's important for people to understand that like also when I say nothing's new under the sun, is that a lot of debates we are seeing today, like that we're talking about here, but also one which we haven't talked about, which is a podcast into itself, is like, should socialists, when they're in office, be agitational? Should they be just recruiting and building the line? Are they there to like govern and to like work within the system? This is a this has been happening, this was happening in the Socialist Party of America. Like, and it's actually, and it's not, it wasn't so even where like uh Moore Tilquith, who until Zaron Mamdami was the most successful real socialist, you know, in the sense of like a real cadre, not like David Dickens, God rest his soul, wasn't like DSA member, but not like wasn't his primary thing. He was the one most successful mayoral candidate. But he really, you guys from his faction, the centrist, wanted to just be agitational. Like that was more priority for him than other people. And I think so. I think it's important for us to learn this history to see like one, we're not that special, we're kind of doing some of the same debates. And two, I think it also like puts into perspective, I think, also what you guys have been talking about, Ramsay of the patients, that like these things will take time. Um, I think but one of the key theses of my piece is that there is basically one major debate in the socialist, U.S. socialist organization at a time. I'm talking that so in that I'm broadly putting in DSA, the socialist party in general. So I said so one example which I don't get into is say Vietnam War. So the Socialist Party really collapses and changes its name because the party couldn't decide if it was good, it was pro-South Vietnam, pro-North Vietnam. That's a podcast series on that. Yeah, I mean it's just like I mean, like you'll be back, but I mean that's like but this is around the birth of neoconservatism. There's a lot going on there. But what I noticed in my research was that, like, right or left, as those factions could be called, or as I'd say moderate and revolutionary, to be nicer, um, you know, the Socialist Party of America was unified that we are an independent working class party and we are not going to be, you know, with the Democrats. And but it was more divided on the labor question, where there was like, are we in the part of the industrial workers of the world? Are we going to be building the AFL uh because there's no CIO then? It's just the AFL. Um, and that was like a real dynamic fight that there was not unity on. Um, and I say fast forward now, I feel that there is much more consensus around the rank and file strategy compared to like the politics I used to have, which would be much more like relating to labor leadership, you know, being part of NGOs, where it's much more, and so I feel that there's obviously differences in the labor questions and activities within DSA, but there's much more of a consensus where the debate we're having here is the much more is much is one part of a much broader and more of the central fight that's happening within DSA about the future of DSA. Um, and I think that's where and so I think what has shifted though is like which what the question is, but there's still one dominating question, I think, in an epoch. And so I just want and I think uh you see you you asked some really great questions, which I may have missed, but I do think that one of the more interesting aha moments, too, is like the socialist party also at two times, which I learned through reading uh about an exbiography of Norman Thomas, who was the socialist leader after Debs, did try to kind of form a more mass party that wasn't socialist. First, which is probably more well known, was the Progressive Party uh in 1924, that Debs, the party didn't run a candidate and supported that. Um, and that party did well. I mean, it got 17% of the vote with La Follette, but there was also an effort in 1948 uh to mimic the to be more like the Labor Party, uh, that was actually chaired by Mayor by uh A. Philip Randolph. Um, but it didn't go anywhere partly because Randolph didn't want to be the presidential nominee. And I think what was key about that, why didn't he want to do it? Because he was the classic fight we're having, he was lobbying the federal government and didn't want to alienate Roosevelt and then Truman. Um and so he back so they ran Thomas for the last time, and Thomas didn't even want to run, and he was an old man by that point. Um, and so that was a really interesting thing.

SPEAKER_05 56:47

They didn't do very much leadership development in the SCP. Yeah, no.

SPEAKER_01 56:50

They didn't, they didn't. It was a pre-pro. And like, and so even when they tried, people had already kind of advanced. So it was like, so that's also that story is also microcosm, too, of like when we talk about a lot of our candidates, like, are you willing? When are they willing to break? Because he wasn't right or wrong, Randolph was not willing to break and lose those ties, you know, and that's the institutional pressure, too. You know, he um and I think it's the so that's kind of a broad summary of kind of those that research and why I think it's relevant today.

unknown 57:18

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 57:18

What I'm picking out of that too is that the similarities you see is really also about sort of the internal culture. Maybe it didn't have like the same exact structures, which you know, the caucuses in DSA are not recognized officially. They are self-organized within DSA by people who really, really care about DSA. Um, or they care, you know, maybe some of them aren't as involved in uh DSA leadership and things like that, but they see DSA as being their political home, right? There they wouldn't be in it um if they weren't. And it's a requirement, I think, from all the caucuses um that you are in DSA. I should hope so. Um, you know, that that would be at least the minimum requirement. Um, the different ideas about these things. And just to make a note, if you listen to the podcast that came out before this on reform caucuses, you will know what the rank and file strategy is. If you did not, the rank and file strategy is the name of a strategy of socialists entering the labor movement in existing unions in strategic sectors to create a socialist current in order to radicalize, democratize, and make more militant the union. So just wanted to summarize that because we've done that a couple of times. No worries, that's my job. So um just to, you know, to hear what you're saying, it's like the the purpose behind this is also to note like this is very much like uh a process, one could say. Um, I mean, Ramson laid out like we wouldn't have been, we wouldn't have had a DSA if we hadn't, you know, had you, David, you personally, but like all the people who like kept the lights on when things were were not so hot. Same with the SPA, right? Like it's it's struggled through time. But one of the things I'm also hearing is that there were a lot of mistakes that were made about not just just not having enough people um doing things um that would be willing to kind of put themselves out, um, not just in electoral politics, but also it sounds like labor politics too. So Ramson, I don't know if you would like to kind of speak to maybe some of these tensions that uh David maybe unintentionally laid out, but um, I'm hearing actually a lot of like things that are connecting with what has come before in the conversation.

SPEAKER_00 59:34

Yeah, I mean, I think starting at that last point about A. Philip Randolph, um Byron Ciccher Lopez is running for Congress in the Illinois 4th District, and I um co-wrote an article a few years ago about why socialists need an independent political vehicle. And the central metaphor of that piece was um we can't keep drinking at the same well as our class enemies because they control the well and they can you know deny us the the water we need to drink, right? But it's very scary and risky to strike out into the wilderness to find our own well. And essentially that's what happened, you know, it sounds like with A. Philip Randolph, but that that that's something that that we that repeats itself a lot, often unspoken, which is uh can we risk severing relationships that are critical? And especially for people in positions of responsibility, it's not like A. Philip Randolph was one of the bravest people in the history of this country. It's not like he was a coward, but he had a lot of responsibility on his shoulders. And that responsibility is the pressure. But is it is it really worth putting at risk, you know, the uh, you know, desegregating the military and all the different, you know, investments and programs that that he was fighting for on behalf of a lot of a lot of people who needed them. Is it worth putting that at risk for this experiment? So that's a very, you know, that's a very important um dynamic that we need to understand is always going to be applying pressure to us. But because we know it's always gonna be applying pressure to us, we need to start experimenting with ways to solve that problem and untie that knot. Um and kind of working back from that, I I would just say also, you know, David's David's piece was uh excellent. Um, and I can't, you know, uh pretend to have a fraction of the knowledge he has about this history, but I have a little bit of knowledge of it. Um I would say that one thing is uh one thing I disagree with David on is this idea that there's nothing new under the sun. Um and I know it's just an expression from Ecclesiastes. I know you're not, you know, saying it's literally true, but um the reason I think it's actually important that that metaphor is important, or that idiom, is because everything is new under the sun. The framework I think about these problems in is really like an evolutionary biology framework. You never return to a previous state. Everything is always evolving in a single direction, nothing ever evolves backwards, meaning nothing ever, once it changes away from a structure, it can never go back. It always is additive. And it therefore contains within it everything that came before, but it can never lose something it's gained. Um and given that, when we look back at these these um forms of organization and these issues that have arisen in the past, it's useful to understand that there have been challenges that were similar in the past, but it's also critical to study the fundamental differences between then and now. So, for example, um the foreign language federations that composed uh uh essential parts of the Socialist Party of America, which you'll read about after all of you read David's excellent uh article, um, is fundamentally different from anything like the caucuses that compose DSA. These were socially reproductive, I mean, these were huge communities, ethnic communities for the most part, but you know, uh uh organized around language, I suppose, um, that came from the old country, that had ties that go back to villages in the old country. Also, the nature of it was a lot of them came to places to work for specific employers or in specific industries, so they were also tied together in that way. You know, in some cases it was mining, in other cases it was, you know, other uh of that type of labor. In the case of the the Yiddish um language federation, it was around the textile industry in New York City and other related things. Um, so they also had connections outside of the party that if they left the party, you know, it could cause some social awkwardness, but it would cause social awkwardness because they have to go to work the next day and see the same people, or they or to temple or to to church or wherever. Um, these were social reproductive structures that therefore were much more strongly bound together. And so, even to the extent that they formed ideological factions, they were brought to those ideological factions in a lot of cases because of their social ties and industrial ties to one another as part of these foreign language groups. So, um, these foreign language federations. So that is very different from sort of self-selection into an ideological caucus that we have um in DSA now. Now, does that mean that like we're headed to disaster? Uh, am I a Cassandra and not a doomsayer? Absolutely not. I agree that that um you know having those differences and having these arguments is healthy and it's good because if we don't have them, there's actually probably a problem. It means that there's some something forcing homogeneity.

SPEAKER_05 1:04:40

Something died.

SPEAKER_00 1:04:41

Right.

SPEAKER_05 1:04:41

Yeah precisely.

SPEAKER_00 1:04:42

So but I do think it's important to realize that's one of the challenges we have now. Then there were these communities that were that had these ties outside the organizations, these strong social ties or industrial ties, um, that could help strengthen the party in some sense, but also put, you know, as contradictions often do, also put it at risk. Because by alienating those federations, it meant a significant I mean, at some point, I believe, David, correct me if I'm wrong, but you know, a quarter to half of the members of the Socialist Party were a member of one of these uh foreign language federations.

SPEAKER_01 1:05:16

Yeah, it was pretty large. And it was also what was um then I want to interrupt you, but like what was fascinating too, learning was that like how when the party starts, it's actually a rural, um like heavily citiz US born party. And these language and by the by the end, it's not by the end end, but by the few decades later, it's it's more it's more like us today in sense it's very urban, but it's unlike today, it's like immigrants, and it's like and the party even within its own short beginning lifetime it demographically changed a lot.

SPEAKER_05 1:05:47

Interesting because that also kind of gets to this question of like the internal industrialization of the party, too, because a lot of these immigrants were workers working in factories, right? Like so the uh urbanization of it kind of is the what you would expect maybe of a of a socialist party that also then becomes a workers' party or there's a sort of like movement there. But Ramson, you were saying.

SPEAKER_00 1:06:09

Yeah, no, I mean uh that that's just it's to make the point that like the that those milieus that the party is built on top of um give it a cohesiveness and a strength that um we lack underlying our organization simply because U.S. society is way more atomized, you know, there's not people who work for like one like Rockefeller or whatever and so or Carnegie it's a mine anymore, at least that are members of our of our organization en masse. And DSA does not have the organic connection to like immigrant communities for example that the party developed but it did develop them. So there are things you know to to study and understand about what we need to do to to connect our organization our party organically into those those social reproductive networks those social networks those emplo those in industries so that there is a strength to our organization that does not rely only on people's membership in the organization but has an expression outside of it whether that's soccer clubs or run clubs we have a very successful one here in Chicago DSA shout out um or whatever it is or even you know or you know co-religionists. Yeah yeah and absolutely the workplace is a key one mo you know and and a lot of cities have a major employer or set of employers usually it's an industry in Chicago it's logistics and and healthcare and social assistance that's probably pretty common that second one. And so what are we doing to root our our chapters in those places where we know people will have ties together that don't have to be held together by DSA chapters right solely. The chapter is a place that you know brings people together and gives them political education and focuses them analytically on and helps form the class do the class formation work but we also know that these people are struggling alongside each other or enjoying each other's company outside of a chapter meeting.

SPEAKER_05 1:08:08

Right. I think that's an interesting kind of well almost like what are the new cultural formations and the new kinds of like social reproductive socially reproductive habits we will have that fundamentally have to be different. We cannot pretend to have a family or or ethnic or like you know religious structure like what what existed before it's not possible not just because of atomization but also because we're you know it's a hundred years later and we are not you know that is not like who we are now. I'm interested though in the sense that you know this kind of gets to this question of what do we do next in order to like not just become lowest common denominator because I I would also say the average DSA member it's a lot better than it used to be is really online and doesn't really have like you know like a lot of social habits that necessarily lend itself I think it is getting better because our our organization is becoming more politically developed right there's a there's I mean just through all of the things that we've just talked about like you know people getting involved in uh like socialist elections um these kinds of things that not only bring people into the organization but cause people within our organization to want to develop themselves in order to preserve what we have and also build something for the future yeah I think there's a couple of things too that I want to mention but I do say like I do think it's getting better.

SPEAKER_01 1:09:41

I think about my own personal life not that we should be that anecdotal but like I can really have a full life through DSA friends through basketball group that's prime not explicitly DSA but it's really basically just DSA members um in it. So that's and that's healthy. That's what you want you want like people to have like something I remember when DSA was very unhealthy when I first joined was and my my parents noticed this my parents are like you don't have any you don't seem to hang out with them afterwards. And it wasn't like they could tell it wasn't I dislike them but it was just like I didn't have anything in common they're like that's not a healthy organization if you're not hanging out with with your comrades. And it's not corny I throw that word too too much but it's not like it's act it's it is healthy. I think also but to piggyback to on like what differences are and I think we're Ramson's right to bring that up too is like there's no Communist Party equivalent right now. And I think one of the reasons also that the Socialist Party struggled after Debs was that talented people went to the CP. We don't lose talented people in the same way to NGOs. We kind of talk about that happening but it's not in the same degree or to what it's more like is like when people were losing they were losing people to like the New Deal in the sense of like people went on to work for Roosevelt or for a union in the same way like but I think that I think those things have changed in two so I think he's right there. But I I do think that in the end DSA has to develop these social bonds as you're saying but and that doesn't also have to be like forced mandatory fun like they used to say at camp. It could be like just people like doing stuff together um fun will continue until morale where I'm talking about where like you're like hanging out in the birthday party sometimes you also need a break but but it's it is really a nice community to have now and I think that's what and I think that's where a book I've been meaning to mention too is the organizer burn uh book which I encourage people to read which is a case study of New York DSA's eco-socialist group but it talks a lot about people joining DSA because and they're new to town and they meet people and like they need to have and the problem is we need to break can't just be only people moving to town like or of a certain age group and in demographics that's over that is a problem but but it's also really understandable that like we that it's filling a role that and I think you brought up the re I mean I met my partner through Jacobin reading group. I mean which in certain ways I'll just end my point which is DSA adjacent because it's definitely DSA who started that she's not in DSA but it that is the same way people would have met a life partner through church. You're literally going to like this meeting with people who have a very similar value system to you. You know not going to like it's not to for matchmaking but that's it's a natural way to meet someone we want that to also be a healthy way for the organizations and so that's why I think it's good to also model these healthy dynamics here um because we can all still because that creates a healthy organization in many ways beyond just political debate.

SPEAKER_05 1:12:40

Yeah I I don't want to you know maybe we should have another podcast the thing about having this podcast is that it always generates more things than you can talk about than like oh yeah we definitely need to talk about DSA uh romance. But the um the the thing I'm hearing from you too David is that there's this sense in which people can see that DSA is a place for their politics and their that that it could be a place not just to necessarily meet anybody but a place where they feel they can belong. And what that indicates is that we're successfully getting our message out into the world right like that we're actually drawing people in because people know who we are and they think hey they might not think of it in party terms. That's a place where I can do the things that I think are important. You know, yes there are some people who might be like oh I you know I'm just gonna try some things out and I've you know you've met those folks they're just like I'm new and I'll like try some things out. But a lot of people come specifically if they're not already in DSA because they've been meaning to join and then they're like well now's the time right and um this is you know I think an important thing to talk about in relation to the party as we build it you know it's we're building it it's not just it doesn't just exist as like a an empty structure that we're like sort of filling up is that the dynamics here are also about not just making people feel quote unquote included in the sense of um you know we we hear you we see you but actually like development right and like making what I like to say is that we we we're in the business of making new and better socialists, right? Like we we make new ones and then we make the ones that exist better. And political education's a huge part of that um I say and I hope you both agree otherwise you wouldn't be here. But yeah like we've we're actually near near the end of time but Ramson did you want to say any anything to to wrap up uh and before we say goodbye?

SPEAKER_00 1:14:38

Yeah absolutely I think I think political education is critical and I think when we talk about making making more socialists making better socialists a key part of that is you know I to to bring it back to what to what I kind of discussed at the beginning which is that when we when we think about building the party we're thinking about the the this question of resource development and resource independence resource mobilization and and the resources people will think of as money and volunteers but that is one very small part of it. It's important but it's not the whole thing. The other possibly the most critical resource is um information or knowledge and experience and the way we have designed our organization to put that knowledge out in the world political education propaganda but importantly ingest it as well and metabolize it to go back to like a sort of evolutionary biology thinking about it. Which is so critical and and I think you know when we're talking about these these um these foreign language federations and stuff it is it's it's really one of the things that helps me think about it which is you know when we have these people like you're you're talking about Michaela who join the organization and and they say it's time and wow this is a place where I finally feel comfortable talking about my politics or like I'm hearing things that I would have thought I was crazy for thinking and it just makes me feel like I'm a real political person finally and all these things. When we give that person the tools to go out in the world and talk about this vision, um are we giving them the tools to talk about it in a way that will bring more people in and also are we talking to people in a way where we will learn um what works and what doesn't work where we will learn what the issues are in a given industry or a given neighborhood or a given community in a way that lets us hone our analysis as an organization. That ecosystem of putting information out, putting analysis out, putting our vision out, but also taking information in so that we can constantly be adapting and refining our analysis and vision so that it speaks to the people it needs to be speaking to that is the resource that is the resource ecosystem that's just as important as small dollar donations and volunteer you know door knocker hours. And so political education is a critical part of that. It hones us it informs our propaganda and also importantly it it creates the sort of gut biology inside the organization to make sure that that information comes in institutional knowledge is processed shared and preserved over time.

SPEAKER_05 1:17:08

It goes distributed yeah yeah it it goes into our cells and builds up the the the the the being I'm I'm digging it I'm digging the extended metaphor um yeah no I think that's I that's a really great way of putting it I'll never not think about that again. I love thinking about uh the way that the body processes things anyway um and hopefully people are able to um recognize it right like recognize that it's it's good for them but that's also what our organization is for is being able to have these like really exciting debates honestly like you know we're not afraid to have them we're not afraid to to put them out there in the world either right these aren't just internal debates these are debates that include everything that we're we're kind of trying to do out in the world right the external work labor you know obviously electoral but even other you know parts of our movement the anti-war movement um you know fighting imperialism fighting um austerity you know um needing you know we could just like go on and on like all of these things to make a better world um and to try to like raise people's expectations and including our own right about what's possible um David do you have anything you'd like to say before you say we say goodbye today yeah I first thank you Michaela for organizing this and Ramsey's been great to talk to you um I think when I talk to you about like now we're at like 10K was a dream I remember I still had my pink hat from the campaign from a few years ago and we and we I mean 100k we got there.

SPEAKER_01 1:18:36

And I really think it's 500k for me is like what I'm thinking about not tomorrow. But I think that's also what we have to do is like as much as we praise ourselves and we should you know DSA will have to become more diverse both not just in terms of racial demographics but age. Like it has to be a welcoming space and I think we're all getting and I think I just people believe one thing what I'm saying is like we really want to get DSA to that point that size and it's really going to be incumbent on us also to be open to like figuring out ways that we can really get different demographics and people to feel safe. And I think that's where like the foreign language federation while they had its problems I think is a good example where like where people also can be socialists within their own safe group but then part of a larger social organization there's a value in that it can't just be caucuses but also can be ethnic identities because right now DSA is still too white I think especially that's the one I'll focus on most and I you know I think that that's a problem that we can actually overcome it it will just take a little more care. Um and I but I do think the bigger you are the easier it actually gets because you you will see more and more diverse people you know diverse people coming in. So I think that's really one of our next challenges is how do we get to 500k and how do we change make the organization more welcoming.

SPEAKER_05 1:19:47

All right to be continued with 500k um thank you both so much for being on and thank you to our production crew Emma, Michael and Tim who put this all together. Class is a podcast of DSA's National Political Education Committee or NPEC which works to expand the knowledge of DSA members and non-members in the service of winning the struggle for socialism and democracy. You can find out more about NPEC by searching for us online or following us on social media but the best way to find out what our committee's up to is by signing up for Red Letter, NPEC's monthly newsletter. And if you aren't already you can become a DSA member by following the link in the podcast description.

SPEAKER_02 1:20:21

Okay until next time solidarity is the point