Our Party

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
The iron is hot and we need to strike when it's hot
because we need to, in ascientific socialist way, do the
experiments that we need to doto figure out what our
structural and organizationalindependence requires.
Because even somebody betweenmyself and David on this
question would agree that it'sgoing to be iterative and

(00:24):
dynamic, which means like we'regoing to keep building up this
independence that David'sdescribing.
You know, people are going to belike, hey, yeah, I'm a DSA
member, vote for me just becausewe become stronger and more
popular, that's going to happen.
Um, and then what's happeningnow?
It is happening.
It's it's happening now, right?
And so as that happens, theinstitutions that are threatened

(00:44):
by that are not gonna donothing.
They're gonna act.
One of the ways they will act isresource denial.

SPEAKER_05 (01:01):
Hi, comrades, and welcome to CLASS, the podcast of
Democratic Socialists ofAmerica's National Political
Education Committee, or NPEC.
My name is Michaela, and I'mchair of NPEC this term and a
member of North New Jersey DSA.
On this episode, I'll be talkingwith comrades David and Ramsen
about a topic that never seemsto get old.
The party.
Why don't we have an independentsocialist or workers' party?

(01:23):
Or if you think we do have asocialist party as DSA, why
isn't it like past socialistparties?
Or if it is like past socialistparties, why aren't we big and
powerful?
Or or or on it goes.
As we continue to act like aparty, these debates become more
nuanced and touched almosteverything we do in DSA, from

(01:43):
electoral work to labor tointernal democracy.
So we won't end the debate hereon this episode, but hopefully
we'll be adding productively andcomradely to it.
And I think anyone interested inDSA, whether you're in it or DSA
curious, might find something tothink about in a new way.
David's a member of New YorkCity DSA and the Socialist
Majority Caucus, and Ramson is amember of Chicago DSA and the

(02:07):
Bread and Roses Caucus, and bothof them have written a lot on
this topic, pieces of whichwe'll be referring to throughout
the conversation and will belinked in our show notes.
Before we dive in, a reminderthat class is available on all
major podcast platforms.
Please consider becoming a DSAmember by following the link in
the podcast description.
You can also send us a messageabout the episode and sign up

(02:28):
for Red Letter and PEC's monthlynewsletter using the provided
links.
Welcome to class, David andRamson.

SPEAKER_01 (02:35):
Thank you for having me, and very excited to be here.

unknown (02:39):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 (02:40):
Thanks for having me.

SPEAKER_00 (02:41):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 (02:42):
Of course, yeah.
Excited about this conversation.
But everyone has to ask this beasked 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 asocialist?
And why and how did you joinDSA?
David, you can go first if youwant.

SPEAKER_01 (03:00):
Okay.
Um, so hi everybody.
Uh thanks again, Michaela, forhaving us.
Um excited to talk to both ofyou, good friends.
Um, I joined DSA and I basicallyspent my whole adult life in DSA
in 2003.
Uh, I grew up in a socialisthousehold.
Um, my parents were sympatheticto DSA, but not members then.

(03:21):
And they my dad was involved inpolitical activity in Chile
during the government ofSalvador Allende and was exiled
here and was very appreciativeto DSOC, one of DSA's
predecessor groups, for its workwith him.
And my mother was also involvedin Chile's solidarity.
So I grew up kind of around theanti-imperialism and also
viewing socialism as a realmovement of people.

(03:43):
But I, you know, socialistmovement was very weak when I
was younger, so I didn't feelcompelled to join any group, I
said, until I was like an adult.
And I found DSA to be the mostcompatible.
I got involved in what what isnow the young democratic
socialist of America, um, and soforth.
And I've just really been thishas been my political home for
the past two decades.

SPEAKER_05 (04:04):
Wow.
You're an old schooler.
Big time.

SPEAKER_01 (04:07):
Cool.

SPEAKER_05 (04:07):
Uh Ramsa, what about you?
How'd you how'd you become asocialist?
And did that predius uh did thatwas that before you joined DSA?

SPEAKER_00 (04:15):
Um I so I I I grew up in a first generation
household where you knowsocialism wasn't necessarily a
bad word, but it wasn't a verytaken seriously word.
Um but uh my you know, I Iworked um for a at a union as an

(04:36):
organization not long after sortof becoming an adult and going
out on my own and and had someother jobs in sort of the
organizing sphere, progressivesphere.
And this was in the early 2000s.
You know, I I had heard of DSAat that time, you know, growing
up in Chicago and working inChicago.
Uh there was there was a livelychapter here, but it was very

(04:57):
small.
And frankly, uh my experiencewith other socialist groups and
sects um was not positive atthat time.
And so uh it and so it wasn'treally uh organizationally
something I would want to do isjoin a socialist organization.
Um it wasn't until 2016.

(05:19):
Yeah, I had done a lot ofprogressive organizing,
progressive world organizing,mostly union organizing,
community organizing stuff, umindependently.
But um it wasn't until 2016 thatI joined uh DSA um as as the
organization exploded and assomeone who was a little older
than the joining profile at thetime, and who had um and who had

(05:41):
at that point, you know, 20years almost of experience
organizing in Chicago.
I felt like you know I could beuseful um uh you know as as
somebody who'd been around theblock sort of.

SPEAKER_05 (05:54):
And you're still here, so they've gone they they
haven't gotten all the use outof you yet.
Or we we collectively haven'tgotten all the use out of you
yet.
Um and yes, thank you both somuch for being here.
I think this is gonna be areally productive conversation.
Um, as I mentioned, we'll betalking about some of the works
that you've done.
Um David, you wrote a piececalled The Long Reroute that was

(06:16):
published by the Rosa LuxemburgFoundation here in the US.
They have an office here in NewYork.
Um, and it is an outline of thesimilarities or the sort of like
connections, continuitiesbetween the Socialist Party of
America, which was Eugene Debsum party, and DSA.
And you kind of link that upwith how we see ourselves now,

(06:40):
right?
Um and uh Ramsey, you havewritten um for the outlet
Midwest Socialist, which is uhChicago DSA's kind of um great
uh publication online um acouple of times about um
independence, politicalindependence, and most recently
about running somebodyindependently um in Chicago,
who's uh someone who I hope youget a chance to talk about.

(07:03):
Byron, who's a member of ChicagoDSA, current older person, and
will be running for Congress.
Um and it's pretty excitingstuff because you know, David,
you've been in DSA a long time,and I'm sure when people you
would they would have beenthought thinking this was an
insane idea, right?
Um, even just a couple of yearsago.
Um, but now it seems like thisis the next move.

(07:26):
But before we move into all ofthat, um, because it's going to
be a very rich conversation,maybe just like a little bit of
like grounding to talk to ouraudience about what you think a
party's for.
Because most people in the USexperience parties as one of two
teams you support every two tofour years with pretty confusing
rules state by state about howyou're allowed to run in

(07:48):
elections, how you're allowed tovote in elections.
Um, and there's no real everydayconnection to it for most
people, right?
Um, it's really hard to figureout actually like what a
Democratic Party anything is,right?
It's kind of hidden in a lot ofways, unless you're a real
political head and then you'rekind of like sucked into it,

(08:10):
right?
But for most everyday people,it's just not something they
think about except when theyvote, um, if that, if that at
all.
There's actually a plurality ofAmericans um pretty consistently
that are unaffiliated,unenrolled, or otherwise
independent, um, which can meana variety of things.
Um But in your views, whatshould a party do or be for?

(08:31):
Ramson, maybe you can take thisone first um and just kind of go
back and forth like that.

SPEAKER_00 (08:37):
Sure.
Um what should a what should asocialist party be for?
Or what should a party be for?

SPEAKER_05 (08:42):
Any party, really.
Um, but then a socialist partyobviously is appropriate for
this conversation.

SPEAKER_00 (08:48):
Uh uh a party is a a party is an organizational
expression of a group interest.
Um, and that goes back to Romantimes, you know, there was
plebeian parties and whateveroptimates parties and all that
stuff that you know I'm surethere's podcasts about.

SPEAKER_05 (09:04):
But um not this one.

SPEAKER_00 (09:07):
But the uh, you know, that's that's essentially
what we're talking about.
It's it's just it's it's anorganizational expression of a
group interest.
Um and so what the party shouldbe for is to uh um be the the
mechanism through which thatgroup acts.
Um it has to act throughsomething.
It can't uh it's fundamental, Ithink, to the idea of uh uh

(09:28):
political power that uh youcan't act except through
concerted activity, but also uhit has to be conscious and it
has to be organized.
The idea that you will getchange through the aggregate of
individual choices is somethingthat you know libertarians may

(09:48):
believe and certain capitalistsmay believe, um, or at least
tell us they believe, but uh itit doesn't really bear out.
Uh change does happen uh uh onthe basis of the accumulation of
individual choices, but not uhnot the political change that
expresses a group decidedinterest.
Um and so you know I think it'sreally as simple as that.

(10:09):
Which of the party before?
The party should be the themechanism through which a group
decides on its interests andthen 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, Ithink one of the kind of
tensions and uh is one way todescribe it, or like debate or
focal points in the debates isum what then does that party
mean legally too?
And so I think like I wouldtotally agree with uh Ramson's
point about a party's anexpression of interests, and so

(10:43):
like what we would distinguishthat between a union.
I think we would say here islike a union would be like uh
workers in a particular industryor workplace expressing their
interests versus just members insociety um expressing a
political interest.
But I agree there too, whereit's like we don't think that
like workers can make individualchange in the same way that they

(11:03):
can do collectively, so it's whywe have these organizations.
So what I kind of view the twomain parties as you were uh
talking about, Michaela, is likethey mean they're not really
parties, they're like brands,um, in the sense that people are
like, I'm a Democrat, I'm aRepublican, but they're not
really members of anything.
And those organizationsthemselves, those brands really

(11:26):
have like different formationsthat aren't necessarily
connected in the way that like aparty would be in another
country, or that's much moretop-down and much more like what
DSA is, where DSA is much looksmuch more like a party in
another country in terms of likehow decisions are made, how it's
structured, how it's consistent.

(11:47):
And I think one example I'llgive is that I was thinking
about this recently when inMichaela's chapter, North New
Jersey DSA, when I was talkingto someone, I said, like, you
know, when I was recruitingpeople in New York to volunteer
for the North New Jersey DSAcandidates, it never came up
like, where do they stand?
What do they believe?
Because there's such anunderstanding of like what a DSA

(12:08):
candidate means to another DSA,or especially one who's been
endorsed, so they've alreadygone through this process, so
people can trust.
So it's more like, am I freethat weekend?
Where that wouldn't be the samecase with the Democrat, quote
unquote Democrat, because peopleare 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 avery standardized view, even if

(12:29):
it doesn't feel that way becausewe're debating all the time, um,
which I think is what we wouldwant a party to be.
And I think then we get to thequestions which we will later is
like, is DSA the party we wantit to be now?
And we don't have to worry,which is kind of where I am if
you were to take the extremeview of my position, or do we
actually need to becomesomething much more independent
in our electoral views?

SPEAKER_05 (12:49):
Yeah, I think this is actually an interesting
debate within our organizationbecause there's a lot of people
who are like on a basic minimallevel, DSA is already a party.
We're deciding to work togetherin order to achieve these
things.
And then not this lastconvention, but the convention
before, we passed thisresolution called Act Like an
Independent Party, which ofcourse has act-like, which has a

(13:12):
simile within it, which meansare we one?
Well, maybe it doesn't matter.
We don't have to debate thatright now.
What we have to do instead isstart building up the idea of
party-like activity within DSArather than it being kind of
someone, um a comrade in anothercaucus mentioned that it's 200

(13:32):
chapters in a trench coat.
Um, you know, like acting kindof like we have DSA on the tin,
but we're all kind of differentinside.
Whereas acting in a more unifiedmanner, in a more national
manner, is what most peoplethink of a party.
And I think, David, what youpointed out, which is that the
lack of trust in the DemocraticParty, the lack of not just

(13:55):
unity, but also the sense thatthe politician is acting in
their own interests and not inthe interests of the party all
the time, right?
And then, of course, associalists, we have a view about
whether there is a, you know, areal difference, quote unquote,
between Republicans andDemocrats when it comes to the
fact that we also think they'rethey're all acting in the

(14:17):
interests of capital, right?
They're all acting in theinterests of ruling class.
So, you know, to the to thesense that in DSA we're kind of
like debating these questions,the questions are productive
precisely because when we talkabout the party, we're also
talking about how do we worktogether in order to achieve our
goals and know that we can go toany place and know that they're

(14:41):
gonna believe what we believe,right?
Um, on a on not just a basiclevel, 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 aboutthis debate and discussion is we
we run into these definitionalissues constantly.
Uh also we look at the problemat different levels, you know,
uh at a macro level, it's onequestion on a micro level, and
then all the places in between.
So, for example, the um thescenario David just raised where

(15:13):
he was in New York recruitingfor North Jersey Diaz say, um I
could, I would, I think youcould probably end up with the
same thing if you had somebodywho moved from one state to
another and they were going tovote and they didn't really know
the candidates on the ballot,but they saw one was a
Republican and one was aDemocrat, and they had to make a
decision in the moment.
Um, now that's just voting, it'snot necessarily going to

(15:34):
volunteer, but nevertheless, theimplication there is well, the
person who's on the Democraticline went through a process, a
primary process, arguably a morebroad process than an internal
party process.
Um, so you know, that votermight think, well, uh, you know,

(15:55):
uh I know enough about thisperson simply by the fact that
they're appearing on this ballotline that I'm gonna choose them
over this next, like what isclearly 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'sthere's there's also questions
about like, well, are thesethings parties?

(16:15):
Well, they're not parties theway the parties are, like the
Democrats and Republicans,they're not parties the way they
are in Europe.
On the other hand, they are sortof facsimiles in the sense that
they they are not just a ballotline because they do have
institutional structures, um,some that require loyalty.
Um, so for example, to belong tocertain state parties or county

(16:38):
parties as an elected official,you have to fundraise a certain
amount for them to retain accessto the ballot line or to get
funds and support forinstitutional support from those
parties.
In every state, you'll have avariety of legislative caucus
party uh caucuses that havetheir own fundraising and
elected leadership, and the samewith county-level organizations.

(16:59):
So it's not like they're justabout 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 internaldemocracy to them.
They're not great, you know,they're not what we would
consider a real democratic uhsystem, especially not a mass

(17:19):
party, but they do have someways of making their own
internal decisions, settingplatforms, you know, endorsing
candidates, all that stuff.
So in a way, they are partiesthat are just more frustrating
because as David said, in theEuropean model, they're more
top-down.
And David, I don't know ifthey're top-down.
I would say they're they're justmore 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 visibleorganizational tree that you
could point to and say thisperson is in charge of this.
Whereas in in the United States,it's more chaotic.
Actually, it's kind of morereflective of our sort of
laissez-affaires approach toeverything, which is that you
know, there's these differentinstitutions and organizations
within that call themselvesDemocrats or Republicans that

(18:01):
are having to compete with eachother sometimes, cooperate with
each other other times.
In some states, the countyparties are very strong.
In other states, thecongressional level party
institutions are very strong.
In some places, it's the statelevel.
Some places it's one senatorthat you know has the big uh
fundraising mechanism or alegislative leader or something.
So, you know, there areparty-like institutions and

(18:25):
organizations that lend thatthat comprise something, whether
it's quite a party or not, or ifeach one is a party, you know,
it's that's that that's what Imean when I say this
definitional problem keepsrearing its head.

SPEAKER_05 (18:39):
David, I'm I'm interested in what you have to
say about that, but I think it'sinteresting, Ramson, that you
said it's more chaotic here,even though we only really have
two parties, and in Europethere's a million, you know,
like um, and because our systemrequires this kind of uh lesser
of two evils approach that youmentioned people going to the
ballot line not knowing much,but they at least know, well, at

(19:00):
least I know this isn't that orwhatever happens to be.
And that can be a very um kindof socialized, cultural
impression, impressionisticapproach if you're not someone
who really knows.
And the fundraising stuffreally, I mean, that's that
requires like maybe a wholeother podcast to just talk about
that.
Um, and you mentioned money inone of your articles um and like

(19:23):
the raising of money and kind oflike this sort of granular uh
equation of what it means toactually try to run someone
independently, which we're gonnaget to in a second.
But David, interested in whatyou have to say to Ramson, kind
of like, you know, do we have adefinitional problem or can we
just call them all parties andjust 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'mtrying to think about not just
say I agree with this and that.
I think where what I will agreewith, though, I think is really
important.
I think what I was saying, if itdidn't come out correctly, is
like when I say it's a brand, itdoesn't mean that these
independent organizations, likewhen I'm thinking like ones we
commonly know, like theDemocratic National Committee,
the Democratic CongressionalCoordinating Committee, to down

(20:05):
to what you know would be theBrooklyn 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 anyexperience in Chicago, but
they're incredibly important inNew 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 ourcomrade Paul uh Heideman made a

(20:28):
really good contribution to thislooking at the other party, the
Republican Party, in his newbook, Um Rogue Elephant, where
one of the things he really madeclear though is like it used to
be even more incoherent becauseboth parties used to have like a
liberal and conservative wing.
That's not as much the caseanymore.
Um, and I think that what healso brought up, which is the
fundraising, is actually theparties are now even weaker

(20:48):
because of well-meaning campaignfinance reform that doesn't
always actually result.
Marjorie Taylor Green and AOCcan raise so much money and
don't have to go through theparty coffers in the same way
that they used the evencongressional candidates had to.
So they're even the parties,these quote unquote parties are
even weaker than they used tobe, and I don't see a trajectory
with them getting stronger.

(21:10):
Which is why I think what Idistinguish when I talk about
this independence is betweenpessimism and cynicism, where
I'm pessimistic about theprospects of this kind of
independence we're talkingabout.
Not because I because if I wascynical about it, I would think,
oh, it's a bad thing, weshouldn't even talk about it.
I'm actually very excited aboutByron's run, I want to hear more
about it.
But I'm pessimistic in that likeI just see this very weak party

(21:30):
structure.
I feel it's very, and I feellike 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, kindof 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 spin relation to specific um like
structures, events, you know,about independence.
So why does the working classNeed political independence in
order to obtain its objectives.

(22:03):
And this this might also be aquestion about why now, right?
Like what, like, like what'slike with the timing issue,
which the title, I think, if Irecall correctly, Ramson, is the
time is now for an independentrun.
And so that was written inJanuary.
We are in the middle of it.
So let's get into it, Rams.
Go ahead and and maybe give alittle bit of a taste of what

(22:24):
your theory is and kind of likehow you're traveling through it.
And like, what is this politicalindependence?
Why is it important for theworking class?
Why is it important forsocialists to support working
class political independencethrough a party?

SPEAKER_00 (22:37):
I think, I think the idea is fairly simple.
I mean, it starts with with aMarxist concept of class, the
the working class in itself, andthen the working class for
itself.
The working class in itself isthe category.
The working class has to becomea a class in itself.

(22:57):
Um then the class has to then beable to act for itself, for its
own interest, right?
Um so first the class has to seeitself.
The people in it, the people whomake it up, you know, we have to
see ourselves as a class withunified interests.
We have to see that.

(23:18):
Um how can it do that if it'sentwined with its class enemies?
Um, then the class has to actfor itself, in its own interest.
If our interests arefundamentally defined by how
they harm or are to thedetriment of our class enemies,
how can we act for our interestsalongside the segments of

(23:38):
society we conflict with?
So to be less abstract, peoplein the class to see themselves
there has to be as littlemediation and filtering by other
institutions as possible.
What that means is the the partyneeds to be composed of people
acting together directly, peopleshould have experience of their

(23:59):
efforts affecting the world.
Um the party has to be able tocommunicate to its
constituencies directly andintake feedback from its
constituencies directly andintake knowledge from them
directly.
So as little intermediation aspossible.
If the party in New York orChicago or Los Angeles or not

(24:19):
one of the three biggest citiesin the country uh is acting, um
Union City, New Jersey.
Yeah, there you go.
Um it needs to speak to theworking class of that area as
much as possible directly, notmediated through other
organizations, otherinstitutions, power brokers of

(24:40):
any kind.
Um, and when it is acting, ithas to get feedback on what it's
doing from that constituentthose constituencies directly,
not by tastemakers orintermediated institutions.
It has to be able to take inthat information and metabolize
it in itself as directly aspossible.

(25:00):
Otherwise, it will always be ina cycle of drifting away from
the work from the working classconstituency that it relies on.
So it has so for a class to befor itself, it has to make
decisions independent ofresource decisions.
It does not decide for itself.
So what that means is it'sfundamental to independence.

(25:21):
And this isn't not this is notjust for the working class or
socialist parties, but reallyall liberation movements when
you think about it.
It it means to make decisionsindependent of uh of the
resource decisions of othersmeans the working class has to
has to resource itself fromwithin.

(25:43):
And if it's resourcing itselfwith from within, what's
entailed is that because theresources are coming from
within, they can't be mobilizedexcept with democratic decision
making that's both formal andparticipatory.
So the organization does notrely on any outside source
significantly for the resourcesit needs to act.

(26:03):
All of the resources are more orless coming from within.
That means people have to makethe decision.
This is what we are going to doas a group, and then people
actually have to do it.
They have to actually do thedecision.
You know, we're gonna campaignfor this candidate, we're going
to support this strike, we'regonna boycott this company,
we're gonna whatever.

(26:23):
Um, that decision has to be madebecause otherwise the resources
won't get mobilized.
If the resources are external,too much, then the people who
maintain the relationships withthose external institutions and
organizations become the peoplewho decide whether those
resources move.
And that is what will determinethe direction of the

(26:46):
organization.
So it's it's a very, it's it'sit's not a big ideological sort
of like we need to beindependent, you know, some
abstract theory.
It's a very concrete andmaterial issue about when we
make a decision, will we stickwith it?
How do we make it?
And will it actually move theresources we need to move to
win?
Will we ever be completelyself-reliant?

(27:07):
No.
Do we will we ever be do we haveto become like a commune that's
untethered from the world firstbefore we're a party?
Absolutely not.
But we do understand that theresources have to come from
within for us to truly be ableto act for ourselves.
And for that to be the case,there has to be a little
intermediation between the partyand its constituency, and there

(27:27):
has to be as little reliance onoutside 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'sadvocate here.
Um, why can't that just happenin the left wing of the
Democratic Party then?
For example, you just brought upAOC, or let's say Zoran, right?
Like he was able to get, as youmentioned, Ramson, um, you know,

(27:56):
tens of thousands of people toum throw in for his campaign
when he said, I'm not takingcorporate donations, but also,
you know, this is a movementthat belongs to all of us.
But he was running for theDemocratic, the Democratic
nomination.
And some criticism has come upum of him over the past few

(28:16):
months about him referring tothe Democratic Party as our
party.
Um, we won't get into that.
This is not a Zaron trashingsession or a Zaron valorizing
session.
But be that as it may, thisquestion of acting independently
or acting, mobilizing, deciding,um, the Democrats at least say
that they're a big tent, thatthey can include everyone.

(28:39):
Um, and this is a two-parter,right?
Like I want to hear what Davidhas to say about this because I
think that if I if I get youcorrectly, David, you're kind of
saying DSA is already doingthis, but we don't have to
break, right?
We don't have to act technicallyindependently in order for this
to happen.
But then there's also thequestion of defending our
independence within or from allthese other actors, right?

(29:04):
Because there's not just theDemocratic Party, there's also
NGOs, there's all of these othergroups that might see a talented
DSA elected, or they might see asocial movement within DSA like
sort of taking off and think,now that's a base there.
Like that's that's something Ican tap.
So, David, please hold forth onall of this.
I I want to know about like whatit means to act like a party in

(29:27):
this way that doesn't requireindependence.
Um, and then yeah, we'll just gofrom there.

SPEAKER_01 (29:33):
Let's go from there.
Um, so what I think Ramson laidout is kind of like, at least
for me, hard to argue withbecause we're this is where I
think we're getting to thedefinitional problems and not
talking past each other becausethis is a great comradely
discussion, but like where doesso we want to get to like where
does the rubber hit the roadwhere or where does at least the
diverge.
And so again, what I'd say likeon the simplest level, I think

(29:54):
what he described is whatMichaela Bieber saying is like
for me, that's like sounds a lotlike DSA right now.
Um that certainly sounds a lotmore like DSA or trade union
than the Democratic Party orthese NGOs that are obstensibly
membership organizations.
Um, where I think we start whereI also see some of your

(30:15):
concerns.
I think that you were outlining,maybe they're not your concerns,
Caleb, but you're outliningthem.
Where I will say, for example,let's look at New York.
There are, you know, these aregreat socialists in office,
there are great socialists inoffice who candidates who are
socialist candidates who areendorsed by DSA.
There's also DSA members who arerunning who aren't endorsed at
all.
And like, and that's where westart acting more,

(30:37):
unfortunately, like theseDemocratic-Republican, more
traditional US parties.
And I think one of the funniesttidbits is like Diana Moreno,
who just recently won theassembly seat to replace Zoran,
her two opponents in the specialelection were DSA members.
I mean, it was just like it waseveryone was a DSA member.
Only one, only she had theendorsement.
Uh, but it it but that's so Ithink that also gets to like the

(31:00):
problem that even I would say islike, well, what is the point?
Well, we have to have somecoherent thing that means to be
a DSA member where people atleast 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 peopleto be like, oh I lost, I didn't
get the endorsement, I won'trun.
Like even I'm I'm I'm there, I'mthere.
Like I think I don't think Ithink people, if people want to

(31:21):
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 thesomeone's endorsed DSA
candidate, you shouldn't runagainst them.
Where I kind of, you know, justfor the sake of argument, will
you know take my be honest aboutmy opinion, it's like I just
like feel that we are at thispoint where it's like it's just

(31:43):
better to build DSA in the shortterm, get us to like half a
million people, which would beour proportional to what we
would be if we were theSocialist Party of America.
And the part, well, I'll waitfor that my part to say that,
but half a million is a lot ofpeople.
It's we're you know, we just forthe first time in my life, we
broke a hundred thousand.
That's that's pretty historic.
So I think there's still a lotof room to grow.
And that I still that's and Istill think being a faction

(32:06):
officially or unofficiallywithin the Democratic Party
coalition for now makes sense.
And that I think it's one thingwe would do as we get bigger is
we would strengthen our you knowdiscipline.
We would also make it so thatpeople, as you couldn't get
picked off, that it would bemuch more of an institution unto
itself.
Um, and that's that goes throughstrength.
So that's why I still thinkwe're in this short-term stage

(32:29):
where if it's not broke, don'tfix it.
Like I think, and why I describeit as the dirty stay is that
because it's not a comfortableposition to be in.
It's not like, oh, this isgreat.
Like, whereas realignment'slike, here's our coherent
strategy about how we're goingto transform the Democratic
Party into a social democraticparty.
But a part that's alwaysforgotten about realignment that
did happen is that it was lootthat I mentioned earlier, was

(32:50):
that the parties did polarize,which is one that which is that
the Democrats and Republicansare fundamentally much more
opposed to each other than theywere 30 or 40 years ago, where
there was much where there wereliberal and conservative wings
and parties, and you would see,and that's where we get this
reification of bipartisanshipthat I can't stand because it's
totally from a fossilizeddifferent period.

(33:12):
Um, and it I don't thinkbipartisanship is something that
we should be looking for.
We should actually be lookingfor more tensions uh between the
parties.
Um, but that's why I think inthe short term, I think we are
achieving politicalindependence.
And for me, the independencelike I'm more concerned about
personally is like in the tradeunion movement, as a trade
unionist, where I do see a lotmore class collaboration um

(33:32):
between unions, and that's whyI'm more sympathetic than I was
when I was younger to like therank and file strategy, where I
don't feel the same way.
We can and we'll get into itabout like the ballot line where
I've actually where at one pointI was probably closer to you
guys about 10 years ago, andthen I shifted back to kind of
where I'd been when I wasyounger 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 aboutthe rank and file strategy.
But um I I would also say thatin in terms of you know, in in
that article that youreferenced, 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 onthe Democratic ballot the

(34:12):
Democratic Party ballot lineagain.
Instead, what it what I whatthat meant was the iron is hot
and we need to strike when it'shot because we need to, in a
scientific socialist way, do theexperiments that we need to do
to figure out what ourstructural and organizational
independence requires.

(34:32):
Because even somebody betweenmyself and David on this
question would agree that it'sgonna be iterative and dynamic,
which means like we're gonnakeep building up this
independence that David'sdescribing.
You know, people are gonna belike, hey, yeah, I'm a DSA
member, vote for me just becausewe become stronger and more
popular, that's gonna happen.
Um, and then what happenshappening now?

SPEAKER_04 (34:53):
It is happening.

SPEAKER_00 (34:55):
It's it's happening now, right?
And so as that happens, theinstitutions that are threatened
by that are not gonna donothing.
They're gonna act.
One of the ways they will act isresource denial, and resource
denial happens in a lot ofdifferent ways.
It happens, money is a big one,but it's not just money, it's
also reputational damage.

(35:15):
It's um, you know, formingalternative entities that are
literally meant to just sap ourstrength and energy and time.
Databases, databases, tools, andso we in a sense, it's like we
don't even know what theproblems and challenges will be
until we try in strategicallysmart areas to say, let's run

(35:38):
completely separate as much aswe can.
Let's experiment with theresource 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 wherethere's a central labor labor
council in a city and they havestrong relationships with the
Democratic Party there.

(35:59):
There's good historical reasonsfor them to have those strong
relationships.
There's a lot of overlap ofpersonnel.
People go from working for theunion, working for the party to
go working for electedofficials.
They know each other, they worktogether.
Now all of a sudden you havethis insurgent group that comes
in running a candidate outsideof the ballot line, and you
know, they're gonna say, no,we're we're gonna box you out,

(36:20):
you're not gonna get ourendorsement.
We're we might not even let youcome for the interview.
Who knows what they'll say?
Um, what do we do in thatsituation where we've been
denied that institutionalsupport that historically is
critical?
What do we how do we handle thelack of access to a database?
How do we handle not being ableto use Act Blue or whatever?
We won't know, we won't be ableto experiment with methods to

(36:41):
cope with that challenge andthose coming challenges until we
try and identify our blind spotsand weak spots.
This district in Illinois isperfect for this because the
person Byron Siggio Lopez isrunning against is a
progressive.
By her record, working for avery popular progressive, she
actually has not held electedoffice, but presumptively she's

(37:01):
a progressive.
Her stated issue opinions are uhopinions on issues are
progressive, et cetera, etcetera.
Um, Byron is an elected officialwho has a history in the
district, he has somevisibility.
Every vote that comes his waywill be a vote for a socialist,
not against a scumbagconservative Democrat, because
that's not her record.

(37:22):
So we will be identifying, wewill be able to find a number in
a base.
Here are people who they had achoice between a progressive
Democrat and somebody who'slike, I'm not a Democrat, I am a
socialist, I am somethingdifferent.
And they made that choice forus.
That is immensely valuableinformation on top of the
mechanical things we we'd learn.
So when I say the time is now,this we have to do these

(37:45):
experiments so that we candevelop the muscles and the
skills and the organizationalcapacity and the knowledge to be
completely independent, one wayor the other, whether that's
using somebody else's ball line,whatever we do, one way or
another, institutionally andorganizationally, we have to
have those resources coming fromwithin, 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 acouple of terms for those who
might be listening and who arenot informed on all of the ins
and outs of the so-called dirtybreak and dirty stay.
So the dirty break is the ideathat we run on the Democratic
ballot line as open socialistclass struggle uh candidates um

(38:26):
opposing uh the DemocraticParty.
That's the dirty part, right?
We're not nice about it.
We're not, um, and then we'lleither, 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'llbe able to leave, right?
Um, you know, though that's thekind of like suspension of

(38:48):
activity that that is happening.
And as we get bigger, stronger,challenge Democrats um in ways
that maybe are surprising forsome, why would you run against
this great progressive, right?
Those kinds of things sort ofbuild up.
That's the kind of break, right?
So if what I'm hearing fromRamsey, it's like this is
actually a continuity with thedirty break, like running

(39:10):
independence strategically inorder to test the break, right?
Like and in order to test kindof the ways in which the
Democratic Party, because of allof the funding, all of the sort
of internal apparatus, theso-called machine, um, in all of
these places.
I mean, the Democratic Partymachine is kind of a nickname
that was slapped on it in the1800s and the early 1900s to

(39:32):
talk about the way in which yougot people to vote for the
party.
But the machine of it isactually about these internal
apparatuses and the ways inwhich it kind of is like you can
use this to do politics so longas we let you, right?
Um, you can use this machine tokind of like get where you are,
even if you're not totallywithin.
The dirty stay, David, maybe youcan extrapolate a little bit

(39:55):
more.
But like what you said is thatit's like staying within the
Democratic Party, not in orderto change it, but in order to
continue to use this stuff.
So it's like they're very closein a way.
But I think that there is thislike strain of tension that is
obviously why we're talkingabout this today, because it is

(40:16):
also about how loudly and how umsort of strategically uh solid
or like you know, concrete arewe gonna make this independence,
right?
This this demand for politicalindependence.
But David, if you um hadsomething to sort of wrap up and
then we'll yeah, I'll just wrapup.

SPEAKER_01 (40:35):
And I think you described the dirty state well
in that like these are realdebates, though there's a lot of
similarity.
But I think what it gets to is areal debate within the
organization for our ownresources and our own time, and
our time is a resource to becorny about it, but it's true.
And that like for me, this iswhat Ramsey is describing, is
not a priority of mine, and Igive a political articulation

(40:57):
why.
And so to be specific to kind ofmy own changes on this, where
it's like I remember I becauseI'm writing, I'm reflecting on
Shama Swant is running forCongress.
She's like, and I've just beenlike reflecting on my her my
viewing her over the past dozenyears, you know, it was very
exciting when she won.
And it was, and it was like wewere like, wow, maybe, and it

(41:18):
was causing people like me in2013 and 14 to question.
And I wrote something in Jacobinvery similar to what Rams is
talking about, but different.
But I was like, why aren't welike running socialists
independently in blue cities?
Like just against to see how itgoes.
I changed because I saw in NewYork when the DSA did that, the
chapter did it for JabariBrisport, and that socialist

(41:40):
line got like which took a lotof petitioning time to get,
like, was kind of forgotten.
And that that's kind of whereI'm at.
It's just like it's just not ahuge priority for me, and I just
think it's a lot of time.
But I will, and so that's why Iwouldn't do it.
I do think though, it is I agreethat of course it would be an
interpretive, it would beinteresting data points to get.

(42:00):
I will donate to Byron'scampaign if I'm willing to say
that, uh, to see how it goes andact a good thing.
It's on the record now.
But but I but I'm just likethat's why I'm saying I'm
pessimistic, not cynical,because I think it's worth
doing, but I'm pessimistic inthat 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 orwould he just put up with

(42:21):
challenges like V VitoMarcantonio, a famous New York
City congressman, did for yearsand years, who was able to for
at least some time defeat bothparties.
But these are questions I Iwould be grappling with too, if
I'm grappling with it myself,about like what would happen if
Byron, I would hope, wins, likewhat would happen in the future
too?
And I think that would actuallybe a very interesting data point

(42:42):
we'll see there as well.

SPEAKER_05 (42:44):
We can talk about that.
I just wanted to also notethough that the the question of
pessimism or cynicism, youdidn't say maybe you didn't say
cynic, you said pessimistic, notcynical.

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 ademocratic organization, like
fundamentally.
And so whenever people expresslike their disagreement um about
something and say, I'm not sureif this is gonna work, and
that's why I'm gonna vote not todo it this way.
But Byron's doing it.
Like is it like that that thathorse has left the barn.

(43:18):
So this question, uh Ramson, ofwhat will happen.
I mean, I think that what youmentioned is the scientific
socialist approach, thoughtbroadly, is also about these
experiments, right?
The and the the willingness ofpeople to sacrifice their
resources or use or likeenthusiastically donate, we'll
say, including time, which isMarxist, we know, is definitely

(43:42):
a resource.
It's the resource out of whicheverything comes.
Um, I think that makes a lot ofthe difference here, right?
It's like Chicago DSA wants todo this and is, you know, going
to the mat for this to happen,right?
Not everyone necessarily, butenough to where they.
You know, he won theendorsement.
And that I think that the DSAendorsement process has also um

(44:05):
really evolved over time to tryto ensure that even a democratic
run on a ballot line is anexperiment if you're running a
socialist, you know, especiallyin some places, right?
Some places it's like, whoa,this has never happened, right?
Um, here in in uh in um inJersey, in in Hudson County,

(44:29):
Jersey City, um, you mentionedit, uh, David, but we had two
independent uh socialistcampaigns because they were
running on the same slate.
One was completely independentand one was running on a mayoral
slate.
They both won.
They both won handily.
Um, and a big part of it was thesocialist messaging um and
saying, you know, like we'redifferent, right?

(44:52):
And and and it was a huge amountof resources that that our
chapter put in, mostly um peoplepower, mostly going out and
actually talking to people aboutthese new people, because it
wouldn't have happenedotherwise.
The machine in in Jersey ismighty.
And um, we, you know, a hundredyears uh ago was the last time a

(45:12):
socialist was elected in NewJersey.
And these were two in oneelection.
So to the extent that I kind ofam 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'relike, I'm not advocating for a
stay no matter what.
A lot of that is also, I think,about DSA, right?

(45:32):
It's about what DSA is, whatkind of thing it is.
And what it is, is a party-likestructure or party, depending on
what you think, that you can'treally run successfully without
getting a ton of DSA members outfor you as an endorsed
candidate.
Um, not not these days.

(45:53):
Um, Ramson, did you want to umsay 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 littlebit is when we say when we say
experiments and scientificsocials and all that stuff, um,
and and this this kind of is iswhere I would probably agree
with David, or maybe I don'twant to put words in David's
mouth, but maybe we would agree.
But um experimenting doesn'tmean saying yes to everything.

(46:21):
Yes and is a principle of improvcomedy, not of science.
Um and uh so you know, you haveto make your decisions reasoned.
But the other part of that is abig part of the reason I'm in
DSA, and uh, you know, maybe youas well, Michaela, and I think a
lot of people, is because peoplelike David and Neil Meyer and

(46:44):
other people we could name did alot of work when it was very
thankless and very anonymous tokeep the organization alive, to
do reading groups that wereprobably very poorly attended.
Um, and because of that work andthe long-term vision of it, a
lot of people ended up joiningthis organization and building

(47:04):
the core of the membership thathas now helped the organization
grow and in fact explode.
And so our investment has to bepatient, to use a term from
finance, patient capital.
Yes, uh, we will we will we willdo this experiment for a
reasoned purpose.
We will have specific outcomesthat we want to see and
understand better.

(47:25):
Um will it will it be a slamdunk or a home run?
Probably not.
Will it create the knowledge,the experience, the cadre that
will form the structure and theskeleton for what we know has to
come afterwards?
Almost certainly, even if wefail, if we do it right and if
we preserve the institutionalknowledge and and um develop the

(47:47):
skills that come out of it andall the rest of that stuff, it
will benefit the movement.
It'll benefit the party.
And so, you know, I think that'sthe critical, that's the
critical component of what wemean when we talk about these
experiments.

SPEAKER_05 (47:59):
Thank you.
That actually leads beautifullyinto discussion of David's
article.
Um, I don't know if that wasintended, but um we mentioned
before that David has writtenthis article, the long reroute.
And it was written last summer,right?
It was written in the lead up toour convention, which we have
every two years on odd years inusually August, um, where we

(48:22):
decide on all of our nationalpriorities.
We elect our nationalleadership.
Um, and of course, now that weare at 100,000, you know, it's
becoming even more and moreimportant if we're thinking
about this in terms of what isthe party, right?
Like um the convention is, youknow, it's not just a sideshow.
It's it actually like reallydoes, especially aggregated over

(48:44):
time, point in a direction, youknow.
Um, just a little side note isthat we adopted a resolution
that I wrote called WorkersDeserve More Forever, which
takes uh the program that isthis sort of minimal but in more
detail program agrees to reviseit on the basis of convention

(49:06):
and then put it out as ourprogram um every year, unless we
decide not to in 2027.
But David, your article um iskind of like a long essay, and
you write, you say you write itfor two reasons, kind of for
existing DSA members, um, tokind of know, like, hey, this is
the organization that you gotinto, and here's kind of my
thoughts about I've been around,but also for everyone to know,

(49:29):
you know, what is the continuitybetween the Socialist Party of
America, um, which became the soSocial Democrats um and then
died in 20, 2007, I think yousaid.
So it kind of like faded out,you know, it was this big party,
um, relatively speaking.
And then over time, for thereasons that we know, you know,

(49:52):
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, sortof 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 itabout like knowing about the

(50:15):
Socialist Party of Americathat's gonna tell us anything
about whether or not we thinkDSA is a party-like structure or
the party?
Um, what is what good does it dous?
And then also, you know, I'dlike you to maybe give a little
bit of a better summary of itthan I just kind of like
overviewed.
But like what lesson should welearn, or like what are the sort

(50:36):
of do's and don'ts?
And then we can kind of talkabout it as like uh how it
informs this question of likewhat'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 youstarted.
So I specifically though, Ilooked at the the socialist
party of Eugene Debs.
So really the beginning of theparty from 1901 to about the end
of the first war, world war, andthe new DSA.

(51:05):
And but I think what help wouldhelp the listeners understand uh
the purpose of the piece isactually the title is called The
Long Reroute, because which isan homage to this book I read
when I was a young man by JimmyWeinstein, who was the founder
of the In These Times, um thesocialist magazine, who read
this thing called The LongDetour.
And he was talking about hisbook was about like how

(51:26):
socialism kind of became youknow forgotten uh in the United
States or its legacies.
And what I point to in myresearch is that DSA today is
actually much more like theSocialist Party of America, and
why that matters ultimately isthat like nothing is new under
the sun.
And actually the detour has beenlike the DSA that I knew that uh

(51:49):
Ramson was alluding to, whichwas very not homogeneous in
ideology, but like there were nocaucuses, it was pretty much
people going through themotions.
Like, that's that's an that's athat's actually the abnormal
part of like socialist history.
It's but a socialistorganization is gonna be much
more dynamic and have lots offighting.
And I think so.
One is to push back on the likekind of Cassandras, for lack of

(52:13):
for lack of a better term, whoare like, oh my god, people are
fighting, the organization'sgonna die.
And I'm like, well, actually,it's probably reflects that it's
pretty healthy that people arefighting 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 doomsdayersor the naysayers.
Um so the so and I think that'simportant for people to
understand that like also when Isay nothing's new under the sun,
is that a lot of debates we areseeing today, like that we're
talking about here, but also onewhich we haven't talked about,

(52:54):
which is a podcast into itself,is like, should socialists, when
they're in office, beagitational?
Should they be just recruitingand building the line?
Are they there to like governand to like work within the
system?
This is a this has beenhappening, this was happening in
the Socialist Party of America.
Like, and it's actually, andit's not, it wasn't so even
where like uh Moore Tilquith,who until Zaron Mamdami was the

(53:16):
most successful real socialist,you know, in the sense of like a
real cadre, not like DavidDickens, God rest his soul,
wasn't like DSA member, but notlike wasn't his primary thing.
He was the one most successfulmayoral candidate.
But he really, you guys from hisfaction, the centrist, wanted to
just be agitational.
Like that was more priority forhim than other people.

(53:37):
And I think so.
I think it's important for us tolearn 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 likeputs into perspective, I think,
also what you guys have beentalking about, Ramsay of the
patients, that like these thingswill take time.
Um, I think but one of the keytheses of my piece is that there
is basically one major debate inthe socialist, U.S.

(53:59):
socialist organization at atime.
I'm talking that so in that I'mbroadly putting in DSA, the
socialist party in general.
So I said so one example which Idon't get into is say Vietnam
War.
So the Socialist Party reallycollapses and changes its name
because the party couldn'tdecide if it was good, it was
pro-South Vietnam, pro-NorthVietnam.
That's a podcast series on that.

(54:21):
Yeah, I mean it's just like Imean, like you'll be back, but I
mean that's like but this isaround the birth of
neoconservatism.
There's a lot going on there.
But what I noticed in myresearch was that, like, right
or left, as those factions couldbe called, or as I'd say
moderate and revolutionary, tobe nicer, um, you know, the
Socialist Party of America wasunified that we are an
independent working class partyand we are not going to be, you

(54:43):
know, with the Democrats.
And but it was more divided onthe labor question, where there
was like, are we in the part ofthe industrial workers of the
world?
Are we going to be building theAFL uh because there's no CIO
then?
It's just the AFL.
Um, and that was like a realdynamic fight that there was not
unity on.
Um, and I say fast forward now,I feel that there is much more

(55:04):
consensus around the rank andfile 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 Ifeel that there's obviously
differences in the laborquestions and activities within
DSA, but there's much more of aconsensus where the debate we're
having here is the much more ismuch is one part of a much

(55:25):
broader and more of the centralfight that's happening within
DSA about the future of DSA.
Um, and I think that's where andso I think what has shifted
though is like which what thequestion is, but there's still
one dominating question, Ithink, in an epoch.
And so I just want and I thinkuh you see you you asked some

(55:46):
really great questions, which Imay have missed, but I do think
that one of the more interestingaha moments, too, is like the
socialist party also at twotimes, which I learned through
reading uh about an exbiographyof Norman Thomas, who was the
socialist leader after Debs, didtry to kind of form a more mass
party that wasn't socialist.
First, which is probably morewell known, was the Progressive
Party uh in 1924, that Debs, theparty didn't run a candidate and

(56:09):
supported that.
Um, and that party did well.
I mean, it got 17% of the votewith La Follette, but there was
also an effort in 1948 uh tomimic the to be more like the
Labor Party, uh, that wasactually chaired by Mayor by uh
A.
Philip Randolph.
Um, but it didn't go anywherepartly because Randolph didn't
want to be the presidentialnominee.
And I think what was key aboutthat, why didn't he want to do

(56:31):
it?
Because he was the classic fightwe're having, he was lobbying
the federal government anddidn't want to alienate
Roosevelt and then Truman.
Um and so he back so they ranThomas 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 reallyinteresting 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 theytried, people had already kind
of advanced.
So it was like, so that's alsothat story is also microcosm,
too, of like when we talk abouta lot of our candidates, like,
are you willing?
When are they willing to break?
Because he wasn't right orwrong, Randolph was not willing
to break and lose those ties,you know, and that's the
institutional pressure, too.

(57:11):
You know, he um and I think it'sthe so that's kind of a broad
summary of kind of those thatresearch 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 reallyalso about sort of the internal
culture.
Maybe it didn't have like thesame exact structures, which you
know, the caucuses in DSA arenot recognized officially.
They are self-organized withinDSA by people who really, really
care about DSA.
Um, or they care, you know,maybe some of them aren't as

(57:40):
involved in uh DSA leadershipand things like that, but they
see DSA as being their politicalhome, right?
There they wouldn't be in it umif 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 beat least the minimum
requirement.
Um, the different ideas aboutthese things.

(58:01):
And just to make a note, if youlisten to the podcast that came
out before this on reformcaucuses, you will know what the
rank and file strategy is.
If you did not, the rank andfile strategy is the name of a
strategy of socialists enteringthe labor movement in existing
unions in strategic sectors tocreate a socialist current in

(58:23):
order to radicalize,democratize, and make more
militant the union.
So just wanted to summarize thatbecause we've done that a couple
of times.
No worries, that's my job.
So um just to, you know, to hearwhat you're saying, it's like
the the purpose behind this isalso to note like this is very
much like uh a process, onecould say.

(58:44):
Um, I mean, Ramson laid out likewe wouldn't have been, we
wouldn't have had a DSA if wehadn't, you know, had you,
David, you personally, but likeall the people who like kept the
lights on when things were werenot so hot.
Same with the SPA, right?
Like it's it's struggled throughtime.
But one of the things I'm alsohearing is that there were a lot

(59:04):
of mistakes that were made aboutnot just just not having enough
people um doing things um thatwould be willing to kind of put
themselves out, um, not just inelectoral politics, but also it
sounds like labor politics too.
So Ramson, I don't know if youwould like to kind of speak to
maybe some of these tensionsthat uh David maybe

(59:27):
unintentionally laid out, butum, I'm hearing actually a lot
of like things that areconnecting 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 ByronCiccher Lopez is running for
Congress in the Illinois 4thDistrict, and I um co-wrote an
article a few years ago aboutwhy socialists need an
independent political vehicle.
And the central metaphor of thatpiece was um we can't keep

(59:56):
drinking at the same well as ourclass enemies because they
control the well and they canyou know deny us the the water
we need to drink, right?
But it's very scary and risky tostrike out into the wilderness
to find our own well.
And essentially that's whathappened, you know, it sounds

(01:00:16):
like with A.
Philip Randolph, but that thatthat's something that that we
that repeats itself a lot, oftenunspoken, which is uh can we
risk severing relationships thatare critical?
And especially for people inpositions of responsibility,
it's not like A.
Philip Randolph was one of thebravest people in the history of
this country.
It's not like he was a coward,but he had a lot of

(01:00:38):
responsibility on his shoulders.
And that responsibility is thepressure.
But is it is it really worthputting at risk, you know, the
uh, you know, desegregating themilitary and all the different,
you know, investments andprograms that that he was
fighting for on behalf of a lotof a lot of people who needed
them.
Is it worth putting that at riskfor this experiment?
So that's a very, you know,that's a very important um

(01:01:02):
dynamic that we need tounderstand is always going to be
applying pressure to us.
But because we know it's alwaysgonna be applying pressure to
us, we need to startexperimenting with ways to solve
that problem and untie thatknot.
Um and kind of working back fromthat, I I would just say also,
you know, David's David's piecewas uh excellent.
Um, and I can't, you know, uhpretend to have a fraction of

(01:01:26):
the knowledge he has about thishistory, but I have a little bit
of knowledge of it.
Um I would say that one thing isuh one thing I disagree with
David on is this idea thatthere's nothing new under the
sun.
Um and I know it's just anexpression from Ecclesiastes.
I know you're not, you know,saying it's literally true, but
um the reason I think it'sactually important that that

(01:01:46):
metaphor is important, or thatidiom, is because everything is
new under the sun.
The framework I think aboutthese problems in is really like
an evolutionary biologyframework.
You never return to a previousstate.
Everything is always evolving ina single direction, nothing ever
evolves backwards, meaningnothing ever, once it changes

(01:02:09):
away from a structure, it cannever go back.
It always is additive.
And it therefore contains withinit everything that came before,
but it can never lose somethingit's gained.
Um and given that, when we lookback at these these um forms of
organization and these issuesthat have arisen in the past,

(01:02:30):
it's useful to understand thatthere have been challenges that
were similar in the past, butit's also critical to study the
fundamental differences betweenthen and now.
So, for example, um the foreignlanguage federations that
composed uh uh essential partsof the Socialist Party of
America, which you'll read aboutafter all of you read David's
excellent uh article, um, isfundamentally different from

(01:02:54):
anything like the caucuses thatcompose DSA.
These were sociallyreproductive, I mean, these were
huge communities, ethniccommunities for the most part,
but you know, uh uh organizedaround 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 lotof them came to places to work

(01:03:15):
for specific employers or inspecific industries, so they
were also tied together in thatway.
You know, in some cases it wasmining, in other cases it was,
you know, other uh of that typeof labor.
In the case of the the Yiddishum language federation, it was
around the textile industry inNew York City and other related
things.
Um, so they also had connectionsoutside of the party that if

(01:03:37):
they left the party, you know,it could cause some social
awkwardness, but it would causesocial awkwardness because they
have to go to work the next dayand see the same people, or they
or to temple or to to church orwherever.
Um, these were socialreproductive structures that
therefore were much morestrongly bound together.
And so, even to the extent thatthey formed ideological

(01:03:58):
factions, they were brought tothose ideological factions in a
lot of cases because of theirsocial ties and industrial ties
to one another as part of theseforeign language groups.
So, um, these foreign languagefederations.
So that is very different fromsort of self-selection into an
ideological caucus that we haveum in DSA now.

(01:04:20):
Now, does that mean that likewe're headed to disaster?
Uh, am I a Cassandra and not adoomsayer?
Absolutely not.
I agree that that um you knowhaving those differences and
having these arguments ishealthy and it's good because if
we don't have them, there'sactually probably a problem.
It means that there's somesomething forcing homogeneity.

SPEAKER_05 (01:04:40):
Something died.

SPEAKER_00 (01:04:41):
Right.

SPEAKER_05 (01:04:41):
Yeah precisely.

SPEAKER_00 (01:04:42):
So but I do think it's important to realize that's
one of the challenges we havenow.
Then there were thesecommunities that were that had
these ties outside theorganizations, these strong
social ties or industrial ties,um, that could help strengthen
the party in some sense, butalso put, you know, as
contradictions often do, alsoput it at risk.

(01:05:03):
Because by alienating thosefederations, it meant a
significant I mean, at somepoint, I believe, David, correct
me if I'm wrong, but you know, aquarter to half of the members
of the Socialist Party were amember of one of these uh
foreign language federations.

SPEAKER_01 (01:05:16):
Yeah, it was pretty large.
And it was also what was um thenI want to interrupt you, but
like what was fascinating too,learning was that like how when
the party starts, it's actuallya rural, um like heavily citiz
US born party.
And these language and by the bythe end, it's not by the end
end, but by the few decadeslater, it's it's more it's more

(01:05:36):
like us today in sense it's veryurban, but it's unlike today,
it's like immigrants, and it'slike and the party even within
its own short beginning lifetimeit demographically changed a
lot.

SPEAKER_05 (01:05:47):
Interesting because that also kind of gets to this
question of like the internalindustrialization of the party,
too, because a lot of theseimmigrants were workers working
in factories, right?
Like so the uh urbanization ofit kind of is the what you would
expect maybe of a of a socialistparty that also then becomes a
workers' party or there's a sortof like movement there.

(01:06:07):
But Ramson, you were saying.

SPEAKER_00 (01:06:09):
Yeah, no, I mean uh that that's just it's to make
the point that like the thatthose milieus that the party is
built on top of um give it acohesiveness and a strength that
um we lack underlying ourorganization simply because U.S.
society is way more atomized,you know, there's not people who

(01:06:29):
work for like one likeRockefeller 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 theorganic connection to like
immigrant communities forexample that the party developed
but it did develop them.
So there are things you know toto study and understand about

(01:06:50):
what we need to do to to connectour organization our party
organically into those thosesocial reproductive networks
those social networks thoseemplo those in industries so
that there is a strength to ourorganization that does not rely
only on people's membership inthe organization but has an
expression outside of it whetherthat's soccer clubs or run clubs

(01:07:15):
we have a very successful onehere in Chicago DSA shout out um
or whatever it is or even youknow or you know
co-religionists.
Yeah yeah and absolutely theworkplace is a key one mo you
know and and a lot of citieshave a major employer or set of
employers usually it's anindustry in Chicago it's
logistics and and healthcare andsocial assistance that's

(01:07:36):
probably pretty common thatsecond one.
And so what are we doing to rootour our chapters in those places
where we know people will haveties together that don't have to
be held together by DSA chaptersright solely.
The chapter is a place that youknow brings people together and

(01:07:56):
gives them political educationand focuses them analytically on
and helps form the class do theclass formation work but we also
know that these people arestruggling alongside each other
or enjoying each other's companyoutside of a chapter meeting.

SPEAKER_05 (01:08:08):
Right.
I think that's an interestingkind of well almost like what
are the new cultural formationsand the new kinds of like social
reproductive sociallyreproductive habits we will have
that fundamentally have to bedifferent.
We cannot pretend to have afamily or or ethnic or like you

(01:08:29):
know religious structure likewhat what existed before it's
not possible not just because ofatomization but also because
we're you know it's a hundredyears later and we are not you
know that is not like who we arenow.
I'm interested though in thesense that you know this kind of
gets to this question of what dowe do next in order to like not

(01:08:51):
just become lowest commondenominator because I I would
also say the average DSA memberit's a lot better than it used
to be is really online anddoesn't really have like you
know like a lot of social habitsthat necessarily lend itself I
think it is getting betterbecause our our organization is
becoming more politicallydeveloped right there's a
there's I mean just through allof the things that we've just

(01:09:13):
talked about like you knowpeople getting involved in uh
like socialist elections umthese kinds of things that not
only bring people into theorganization but cause people
within our organization to wantto develop themselves in order
to preserve what we have andalso build something for the
future yeah I think there's acouple of things too that I want

(01:09:38):
to mention but I do say like Ido think it's getting better.

SPEAKER_01 (01:09:41):
I think about my own personal life not that we should
be that anecdotal but like I canreally have a full life through
DSA friends through basketballgroup that's prime not
explicitly DSA but it's reallybasically just DSA members um in
it.
So that's and that's healthy.
That's what you want you wantlike people to have like
something I remember when DSAwas very unhealthy when I first

(01:10:03):
joined was and my my parentsnoticed this my parents are like
you don't have any you don'tseem to hang out with them
afterwards.
And it wasn't like they couldtell it wasn't I dislike them
but it was just like I didn'thave anything in common they're
like that's not a healthyorganization if you're not
hanging out with with yourcomrades.
And it's not corny I throw thatword too too much but it's not
like it's act it's it ishealthy.

(01:10:23):
I think also but to piggyback toon like what differences are and
I think we're Ramson's right tobring that up too is like
there's no Communist Partyequivalent right now.
And I think one of the reasonsalso that the Socialist Party
struggled after Debs was thattalented people went to the CP.
We don't lose talented people inthe same way to NGOs.
We kind of talk about thathappening but it's not in the

(01:10:44):
same degree or to what it's morelike is like when people were
losing they were losing peopleto like the New Deal in the
sense of like people went on towork for Roosevelt or for a
union in the same way like but Ithink that I think those things
have changed in two so I thinkhe's right there.
But I I do think that in the endDSA has to develop these social

(01:11:10):
bonds as you're saying but andthat doesn't also have to be
like forced mandatory fun likethey used to say at camp.
It could be like just peoplelike doing stuff together um fun
will continue until morale whereI'm talking about where like
you're like hanging out in thebirthday party sometimes you
also need a break but but it'sit is really a nice community to
have now and I think that's whatand I think that's where a book

(01:11:33):
I've been meaning to mention toois the organizer burn uh book
which I encourage people to readwhich is a case study of New
York DSA's eco-socialist groupbut it talks a lot about people
joining DSA because and they'renew to town and they meet people
and like they need to have andthe problem is we need to break
can't just be only people movingto town like or of a certain age

(01:11:53):
group and in demographics that'sover that is a problem but but
it's also really understandablethat like we that it's filling a
role that and I think youbrought up the re I mean I met
my partner through Jacobinreading group.
I mean which in certain waysI'll just end my point which is
DSA adjacent because it'sdefinitely DSA who started that
she's not in DSA but it that isthe same way people would have

(01:12:14):
met a life partner throughchurch.
You're literally going to likethis meeting with people who
have a very similar value systemto you.
You know not going to like it'snot to for matchmaking but
that's it's a natural way tomeet someone we want that to
also be a healthy way for theorganizations and so that's why
I think it's good to also modelthese healthy dynamics here um
because we can all still becausethat creates a healthy

(01:12:36):
organization in many ways beyondjust political debate.

SPEAKER_05 (01:12:40):
Yeah I I don't want to you know maybe we should have
another podcast the thing abouthaving this podcast is that it
always generates more thingsthan you can talk about than
like oh yeah we definitely needto talk about DSA uh romance.
But the um the the thing I'mhearing from you too David is
that there's this sense in whichpeople can see that DSA is a

(01:13:01):
place for their politics andtheir that that it could be a
place not just to necessarilymeet anybody but a place where
they feel they can belong.
And what that indicates is thatwe're successfully getting our
message out into the world rightlike that we're actually drawing
people in because people knowwho we are and they think hey

(01:13:22):
they might not think of it inparty terms.
That's a place where I can dothe things that I think are
important.
You know, yes there are somepeople who might be like oh I
you know I'm just gonna try somethings out and I've you know
you've met those folks they'rejust like I'm new and I'll like
try some things out.
But a lot of people comespecifically if they're not
already in DSA because they'vebeen meaning to join and then

(01:13:43):
they're like well now's the timeright and um this is you know I
think an important thing to talkabout in relation to the party
as we build it you know it'swe're building it it's not just
it doesn't just exist as like aan empty structure that we're
like sort of filling up is thatthe dynamics here are also about
not just making people feelquote unquote included in the

(01:14:04):
sense of um you know we we hearyou we see you but actually like
development right and likemaking what I like to say is
that we we we're in the businessof making new and better
socialists, right?
Like we we make new ones andthen we make the ones that exist
better.
And political education's a hugepart of that um I say and I hope
you both agree otherwise youwouldn't be here.

(01:14:28):
But yeah like we've we'reactually near near the end of
time but Ramson did you want tosay any anything to to wrap up
uh and before we say goodbye?

SPEAKER_00 (01:14:38):
Yeah absolutely I think I think political
education is critical and Ithink when we talk about making
making more socialists makingbetter socialists a key part of
that is you know I to to bringit back to what to what I kind
of discussed at the beginningwhich is that when we when we
think about building the partywe're thinking about the the
this question of resourcedevelopment and resource

(01:14:58):
independence resourcemobilization and and the
resources people will think ofas money and volunteers but that
is one very small part of it.
It's important but it's not thewhole thing.
The other possibly the mostcritical resource is um
information or knowledge andexperience and the way we have

(01:15:19):
designed our organization to putthat knowledge out in the world
political education propagandabut importantly ingest it as
well and metabolize it to goback to like a sort of
evolutionary biology thinkingabout it.
Which is so critical and and Ithink you know when we're
talking about these these umthese foreign language
federations and stuff it is it'sit's really one of the things

(01:15:40):
that helps me think about itwhich is you know when we have
these people like you're you'retalking about Michaela who join
the organization and and theysay it's time and wow this is a
place where I finally feelcomfortable talking about my
politics or like I'm hearingthings that I would have thought
I was crazy for thinking and itjust makes me feel like I'm a
real political person finallyand all these things.
When we give that person thetools to go out in the world and

(01:16:02):
talk about this vision, um arewe giving them the tools to talk
about it in a way that willbring more people in and also
are we talking to people in away where we will learn um what
works and what doesn't workwhere we will learn what the
issues are in a given industryor a given neighborhood or a
given community in a way thatlets us hone our analysis as an

(01:16:24):
organization.
That ecosystem of puttinginformation out, putting
analysis out, putting our visionout, but also taking information
in so that we can constantly beadapting and refining our
analysis and vision so that itspeaks to the people it needs to
be speaking to that is theresource that is the resource
ecosystem that's just asimportant as small dollar

(01:16:46):
donations and volunteer you knowdoor knocker hours.
And so political education is acritical part of that.
It hones us it informs ourpropaganda and also importantly
it it creates the sort of gutbiology inside the organization
to make sure that thatinformation comes in
institutional knowledge isprocessed shared and preserved

(01:17:08):
over time.

SPEAKER_05 (01:17:08):
It goes distributed yeah yeah it it goes into our
cells and builds up the the thethe the being I'm I'm digging it
I'm digging the extendedmetaphor um yeah no I think
that's I that's a really greatway of putting it I'll never not
think about that again.
I love thinking about uh the waythat the body processes things
anyway um and hopefully peopleare able to um recognize it

(01:17:32):
right like recognize that it'sit's good for them but that's
also what our organization isfor is being able to have these
like really exciting debateshonestly like you know we're not
afraid to have them we're notafraid to to put them out there
in the world either right thesearen't just internal debates
these are debates that includeeverything that we're we're kind
of trying to do out in the worldright the external work labor

(01:17:55):
you know obviously electoral buteven other you know parts of our
movement the anti-war movementum you know fighting imperialism
fighting um austerity you knowum needing you know we could
just like go on and on like allof these things to make a better
world um and to try to likeraise people's expectations and

(01:18:15):
including our own right aboutwhat's possible um David do you
have anything you'd like to saybefore you say we say goodbye
today yeah I first thank youMichaela for organizing this and
Ramsey's been great to talk toyou um I think when I talk to
you about like now we're at like10K was a dream I remember I
still had my pink hat from thecampaign from a few years ago
and we and we I mean 100k we gotthere.

SPEAKER_01 (01:18:36):
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 wehave to do is like as much as we
praise ourselves and we shouldyou know DSA will have to become
more diverse both not just interms of racial demographics but
age.
Like it has to be a welcomingspace and I think we're all
getting and I think I justpeople believe one thing what
I'm saying is like we reallywant to get DSA to that point

(01:18:58):
that size and it's really goingto be incumbent on us also to be
open to like figuring out waysthat we can really get different
demographics and people to feelsafe.
And I think that's where likethe foreign language federation
while they had its problems Ithink is a good example where
like where people also can besocialists within their own safe
group but then part of a largersocial organization there's a
value in that it can't just becaucuses but also can be ethnic

(01:19:21):
identities because right now DSAis still too white I think
especially that's the one I'llfocus on most and I you know I
think that that's a problem thatwe can actually overcome it it
will just take a little morecare.
Um and I but I do think thebigger you are the easier it
actually gets because you youwill see more and more diverse
people you know diverse peoplecoming in.
So I think that's really one ofour next challenges is how do we

(01:19:42):
get to 500k and how do we changemake the organization more
welcoming.

SPEAKER_05 (01:19:47):
All right to be continued with 500k um thank you
both so much for being on andthank you to our production crew
Emma, Michael and Tim who putthis all together.
Class is a podcast of DSA'sNational Political Education
Committee or NPEC which works toexpand the knowledge of DSA
members and non-members in theservice of winning the struggle
for socialism and democracy.
You can find out more about NPECby searching for us online or

(01:20:09):
following us on social media butthe best way to find out what
our committee's up to is bysigning up for Red Letter,
NPEC's monthly newsletter.
And if you aren't already youcan become a DSA member by
following the link in thepodcast description.

SPEAKER_02 (01:20:21):
Okay until next time solidarity is the point

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Our Party