ISSUE #3

by Joe Mayall

As the most high-stakes vote at any convention, the election of the new National Political Committee (NPC) at the 2023 Convention was the most anticipated and debated decision put before the convention delegates. With each candidate presenting their vision for how the NPC should operate during the upcoming two-year term, NPC votes are often seen as a measuring stick for how the delegates, and therefore the membership that sent them to convention, are feeling about the direction of DSA. 

As the new 16-member body settles in to the inaugural month of its 24-month term, it’s worth examining the responsibilities, duties, and directives tasked to the NPC to properly understand how these members will shape the next two years of DSA.

What Does the NPC Do?

While the Convention is the highest decision-making body in DSA, it is only in session for four days every two years. Between conventions, the NPC acts as DSA’s “board of directors,” making executive decisions that impact the national organization. While the Convention sets DSA’s goals and priorities by voting on resolutions (as was just done in August), it is up to NPC members to determine how exactly these priorities should be carried out. For example, the 2023 Convention voted to keep the Green New Deal as a top political priority. How will this be enacted? That’s up to the NPC. They can allocate resources to campaigns and elections around the country, organize with environmental groups with similar goals, and do pretty much anything else that falls within the stated goal of trying to make the Green New Deal a reality. The NPC also has secondary duties as established in the DSA constitution, such as representing DSA in public spaces, assisting YDSA with its growth and actions, determining yearly dues, and overseeing the chartering of new chapters and commissions. 

All of these actions are determined at NPC’s quarterly meetings, and the bi-weekly meetings of the Steering Committee, a five-person committee elected by the NPC to serve as a consistent body in-between sessions.

NPC Requirements

Earlier the NPC was described as DSA’s “board of directors.” This isn’t just a euphemism, but rather a codified legal responsibility. As the heads of a registered non-profit organization, every member of the NPC has fiduciary duties they must abide by. In addition to enhancing DSA’s public standing, advocating on behalf of the organization, and representing the organization to the best of their ability, NPC members are legally required to fulfill three specific duties. Duty of Care requires them to exercise a “reasonable” level of care, attention, and concern when making decisions. Duty of Loyalty requires them to remain loyal to DSA and not take action that could potentially harm the organization. And, perhaps most importantly, they are bound by a Duty of Obedience that requires them to help the organization reach its stated goals to the best of their ability. To put this into context, the Duty of Obedience requires NPC members to dedicate DSA’s resources to the goals set in the resolutions determined by the Convention. 

If this sounds like a lot, that’s because it is. In addition to spearheading DSA’s national campaigns, NPC members must maintain relationships with DSA’s staff, National Director, and grass roots membership through the chapters. Unlike the aforementioned duties, these aren’t “requirements,” but rather functions necessary to ensure they are best able to continue doing their most important job: leaving DSA better than when they found it.

This will be the main thought on the mind of every new and veteran NPC member as they get to work at the start of their term.

~~

Joe Mayall is a freelance writer and a member of the Denver Democratic Socialists of America. His work has appeared in Jacobin, The Progressive, Balls and Strikes, and The Pika Press. More of his work can be found at joewrote.substack.com.

ISSUE #3

by Caoimhín Perkins

My first takeaway is how huge of a split we have when it comes to electoral politics. This is demonstrated by a glaring inconsistency with how we voted on two amendments to the National Electoral Committee Resolution. We quite easily passed Amendment I, “Act Like An Independent Party,” which said DSA should slowly transition away from working with the Democratic Party by 

1. Establishing our own resources outside of the tools and lists,
2. Identifying our candidates as socialists and separate from the DP,
3. Establishing candidate schools,
4. Establishing our own legislative programs,
5. Expecting our candidates to cross-endorse each other and bloc vote,
6. Developing our own party identity,
7. Expecting candidates to publicly and loudly identify as Democratic Socialists, and
8. Establish Socialists in Office committees

However, when it came time to vote on Amendment P, “Towards A Party-Like Electoral Strategy,” we choked. How are any of the below not necessary for acting like an independent party, something we had just voted to do?

1. Demanding candidates publicly and loudly champion DSA’s platform and identify as socialists
2. Demanding they always vote against police funding, military funding, carceral legislation, anti-labor legislation, and other racist, sexist, queerphobic, ableist, and xenophobic legislation
3. When they breach a standard they have not committed to, that we engage in a process of educating them, and that if they still refuse to meet this standard, that we de-endorse
4. Demanding they cross-endorse and bloc-vote
5. Demand that DSA electeds meet quarterly with their chapters to discuss legislative priorities
6. Requiring National create a group that would meet with and hold accountable DSA electeds in federal office

Every single point here can be found in Amendment I or is just a more rigorous form of what was in Amendment I. And yet, Amendment P failed to pass, and the yes vote was significantly less than the yes vote on Amendment I. The point of contention was, of course, point (3), which created consequences for crossing the red lines established in point (2). 

Comrades claimed that demanding expulsion for candidates was a purity test that sacrificed power. I spoke on the floor in favor of this amendment, explaining that there was no purity test, only a way of educating and holding electeds accountable. Sometimes being principled is the best praxis, and this is case in point. Point (4) even says that we have to educate candidates first, especially on subjects that we failed to educate them on in the first place. This is practically the same thing as point (3) for Amendment I, with the added caveat that candidates can be flunkies in this school and be (as the sternest, but not the first, consequence) de-endorsed. So, either the comrades who claimed a purity test did not actually read the Amendment P, or they don’t mind continuing to endorse electeds that vote in favor of oppression. Either way, they left us with no way to actually enforce our independent identity. To those who did not read the amendments properly, a certain Marxist once said, “Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. How can a communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense? It won’t do! You must not talk nonsense!”

To the comrades who think the de-endorsement and red lines themselves are bad and actually read the amendment, I have to ask what your goal is. This refusal to create accountability structures is a consistent issue we have where I am left wondering how serious a majority of our comrades are about socialism and whether they even know what they want. We have no long term electoral strategy; instead we have comrades fluttering like chickens over short term gains from electing supposed progressives to offices they can lose in 2-4 years while gridlocked against capitalist politicians. I spoke with some comrades who thought that if their moderate democrat in Alabama or city council person in San Diego weren’t up to snuff because of Amendment P, then they would fail. This is ridiculous.

Are we going to have a reformist revolution in 4-8 years? No, and we never will. We’re so focused on big-tents that we’ve forgotten we have to actually seize the means of production like we always say we will, and we cannot do that if we aren’t demanding more of ourselves. The seizure of the state and an entire economy is not some picnic where everyone drops their yes and no votes in a ballot box, and this is especially not the case in a country that was built on stolen land, has the largest military in the world, and has the world’s fourth largest police force. We are the backbone of global capitalism, and those in power will not simply let us reform our way out of it. They are fighting back through police violence, union busting, assassinations, stacking the courts, and attempted coup d’etats. Those of us set on electoral politics can’t even get our electeds to engage with us because we’re scared that we’ll have a few less useless representatives.

We need to get real. Electoralism is not the revolution, but if we’re dedicating resources to it, we could at least have high standards so that we can reliably gain non-reformist reforms. Why even say we’ll act like a separate party if we aren’t going to have something to offer that’s different from progressive Democrats? What will we be except for just another third party? I don’t understand why anyone goes to the convention of the largest socialist organization in the United States just to say that we can’t demand our socialist electeds engage with their base and legislate to a higher standard than capitalist electeds.

The second takeaway is that we have many comrades who still believe that gridlocked politicians are more important to building power than having strong connections with Palestinian and Anti-Zionist organizations. I’m not sure when they started prioritizing individuals over multi-racial mass politics, but we love to mix up our priorities for wins that are aesthetic blockbusters over wins that have substance. There were a number of maneuvers made by those chairing the convention that blocked MSR-12, an Anti-Zionist resolution, from even being brought to the floor. The majority of us voted to refer it to the incoming NPC, probably hoping it would get tanked. I don’t understand anyone who thinks multi-racial mass politics isn’t good for socialism, but keeping around a man who is unrepentant in being buddy-buddy with J-Street and the Iron Dome is. 

Some might say that we can find a third way on that issue, and in another timeline, one where we already had a national accountability structure in place when Bowman broke with DSA, they might be right. But we aren’t in that timeline, and so I would pose this question: do the Palestinian organizations that are writing us off care about that non-existent third way? They don’t, and we voted down the two opportunities to create that national accountability structure. So, again, I am wondering how serious some comrades are about this or whether they actually read these resolutions. Do we not want better for ourselves? Maybe MSR-12 will be passed by the new NPC’s narrow left-majority. That remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that even though both the national BDS working group and International Committee said they didn’t want to be merged, a majority of delegates said “surely they can’t know what they’re talking about,” and merged them anyway.

The third takeaway, as someone who is not a member of any caucus, is that my view of caucuses is slightly less pessimistic—but is still pessimistic, for different reasons. There were definitely cynical uses of power, but in most cases we were all on the same team, even when we were in direct conflict. But it still felt like it encouraged this maneuvering. My thoughts on this are partly informed by history—ultras and libertarian socialists like to criticize Lenin for banning caucuses from existing in the Soviet communist party, calling it anti-democratic. I’m starting to understand why he did it, even though I think banning wasn’t the solution. It feels like for all the power caucuses bring us for organizing on a national level, the side effect is that we have more competition that keeps us from functioning properly. It was astonishing to go from Denver to a National that was a delicate “balance” between hating each other’s guts and knowing we all had (approximately) the same skin in the game at the end of the day. This was, of course, always far more noticeable on votes that posed deep political questions, creating controversy where some comrades refused to look at reality and instead decided to go with their imaginary ideal of how our organization should work. I don’t have a solution to the caucus problem, but there needs to be one.

P.S. – There were bingo cards filled with convention buzzwords, courtesy of the National Housing Justice Commission. I got Bingo twice. 

P.P.S. – Having grown up in the Great Lakes region, quite possibly nothing will top the moment when Stephanie got to the shore of Lake Michigan, couldn’t see the other side, and yelled “this is a LAKE????”

~~

Caoimhín Perkins has been a member of Denver DSA since 2019. They are a former teacher and union steward who works in DDSA’s labor, housing, and internal organizing committees.

ISSUE #3

Denver DSA Convention Delegates were asked to write a paragraph on their experience at the 2023 DSA National Convention. This is what they wrote.

Alejandra Beatty

As someone who hadn’t been heavily involved in DSA work I hesitated getting involved with convention, but also knew that while I still had some free time (due to getting laid off) it would be a great way to make a contribution to helping move the organization forward. I had also been involved just enough over the past year to know there were some concerns with decisions made by the NPC, and struggles for the organization as a whole, that it was important to be sure our local voices were heard at convention. Overall, I’m glad I did it, although for next time I’ll be much more aware of the amount of time to commit. 

I had thought my preparation work was pretty solid, I watched videos for the NPC candidates, and ended up doing it in odd spaces, like the gym, just to get through it all. I judiciously read through all the resolutions, and at least attempted to keep up with discussions in Slack. In retrospect, I wish we had taken a more divide-n-conquer approach early on. Even despite my attempts to understand the full set of issues, I ended up relying on others for advice and recommendations because I knew they understood the political space better than I did. Although I would admit that by taking time to try to understand ALL of the issues I felt slightly more confident in my vote, even when I ended up relying heavily on input from others. 

Would I recommend attending a convention for someone like me? Only if it was someone who could make a big commitment to consuming all of the information and attempting a good analysis. And knowing you need to do all that before you step foot into the convention hall. The convention itself was actually a lot of fun, for those who like to argue politics and see decisions made with such a large body attempting to use Robert’s Rules. I walked away feeling that DSA was a stronger organization based on the discourse I saw happening. It was obvious people cared a lot, and wanted to really build our power to make positive change.

Does what happens at the National level affect us locally, so was it worth our time & costs? Yes. It’s actually a great thing, in my honest opinion, that chapters are able to operate so independently. I also believe firmly that if you are part of a national organization, for anything, you must do the due diligence that the organizational structure is reflecting your values and your priorities. Not only because they are receiving a portion of our funds, but also because they (i.e. the NPC) represent all of us, and that alignment and accountability must be strong if we’re going to claim ourselves as a national group.      

Ahmed

Democracy and debate are muscles we have to exercise. We often tout how democratic our DSA is, but it is as democratic as we make it. Convention was the culmination of several years of work, conflict, and relationship building — and we have to intentionally continue to cultivate it going forward if we wish to have a say in this organisation. It was a delight to see comrades from across the country to discuss and compare our shared organising experiences. While several factions and formations preceded convention, the convention floor was fluid, caucuses were receptive, and a majority of delegates were unfactioned. As part of a team leading the charge on a few resolutions, I was eager to talk to delegates from all corners of the country and win their support in good faith discussion and conversation. There was a massive information disadvantage facing delegates from smaller chapters as well as uncaucused delegates that was at-times difficult to overcome over just three days. That said, we managed to swing lots of votes the good ole way — debate and discussion. I was dismayed by obstructionism on the floor, we should always aim to win on the merits of our positions rather than procedure and chair rulings. We should always aim to reach compromise and fair resolution amongst the membership, even at ideological odds, and we reach this via discussion. We owe each other this as part of our mandate and must do our part to not demoralise our comrades. Mandates are earned. I look forward to this coming NPC term. Good leadership must answer to membership and organise all throughout their term to maintain that buy-in.

Andrew Thompson

Convention for me was overall a good experience. I wasn’t necessarily sure what to expect, having not participated in convention previously or being very apprised of many national campaigns or issues apart from the issues surrounding the punishment of the Boycott Divest and Sanctions (BDS) working group and the appearance of our wavering commitment to Palestinian liberation. As someone who has been active in our local chapters organizing efforts related to Palestine I was looking forward to the debate regarding these issues and hopeful the convention would have created a potentially more clear answer to whether or not we (DSA) as the largest socialist organization in the US will stand firmly in solidarity against continued imperialism and advance Palestinian liberation. However, convention did not provide these answers as we did not debate on the resolution (MSR-12) affirming our anti-zionist principles. Instead this debate was filtered through a recommendation of the past National Political Committee (NPC) to disband the BDS WG and make it a subunit of the larger national internationalism working group, a structural solution to what I feel is an important political question that we left convention without the answers to, as the NPC recommendation passed on a very narrow margin.

However, with the aforementioned aside, I enjoyed talking with organizers around the county on their current organizing projects, how they approach electoral organizing, and just generally being in a room of 1000+ people trying to advance the goal of socialism in a country long too hostile towards the working class. Convention also provided the opportunity to bond more with our chapter’s delegates, other Colorado chapters, and discuss how we plan to organize in Colorado in the future to advance the goals of socialism. While convention was a lot of work and many long days prior to the lead up to convention and during convention I was happy to serve as the delegate chair for our delegates ensuring we could all be present and debate on pressing issues that shape the future of our movement. I look forward to continuing to work within our chapter, with national working groups and committees, and with our newly elected NPC to chart a path forward for a strong internationalist socialist movement in America!    

Colleen Johnston

The 2023 Convention process demonstrated our organizational development and maturity since our incredible new era kicked off just 7 years ago. This year’s convention saw some changes in process, such as a requirement to collect 300 signatures to get resolutions and amendments considered at Convention and a consensus resolution development process for major national  bodies and priority committees, which ultimately helped lead to more consensus and unity.

This  year’s Convention also showed the ongoing newness of our org and membership. During opening remarks, delegates learned that many, if not most delegates were attending their first DSA Convention. The  number of 2023 convention delegates who were in DSA pre-2016 were in the low double digits. One of the things that gives me so much hope about DSA is how many people come to DSA as their first home for political organizing, having never gotten involved in organizing or activism until joining our org. It also means that the ongoing work of cohering and rooting ourselves in shared foundations of organizing, of building and wielding power, are central to the longevity and effectiveness of our org.

Speaking of longevity – DSA faces a major financial deficit for the upcoming year, from at least 1.5 million dollars to over 4 million, if we were to fully fund and enact everything passed at Convention. This is a serious constraint we must grapple with as we navigate the months ahead, and why I’ve been working through the National Growth and Development Committee (GDC) to organize Solidarity Income-Based Dues. Our organization is unique in that we are truly democratic, and our financial power comes almost exclusively from members’ dues contributions. This is why switching your dues to monthly dues, and, if you can, doing like union members do and contributing 1% of your income to our working-class organization is crucial. To make sure our organization is sustainable and able to fight for the long haul, switch your dues to Solidarity Dues here. I also encourage DDSA members to plug into the retention and Solidarity Dues work happening through the national GDC and in our chapter.

Jennifer Dillon

I attended the virtual DSA National Convention in 2021 when the COVID Delta variant was rising. It was a draining, frustrating, demoralizing experience: a week of long Zoom sessions, Shakespearean political maneuverings I did not understand, and a handful of the most annoying people you’ve ever encountered leveraging their extensive knowledge of Robert’s Rules to hijack sessions with tedious, bad faith procedural motions. The only thing that pulled me through was the gallows humor of my fellow Denver delegates. I was happy when it ended and I could go back to organizing with my hometown comrades — people who didn’t behave like childish assholes — and forget national DSA even existed. 

I am happy to report that this year was a radically different experience. In retrospect, it’s very likely the stress of the pandemic in 2021 that drove everyone, myself included, over the edge. But convening in person, being in rooms full of socialists talking about socialism, excited about socialism, and doing socialism was the opposite of draining — it was a thrilling, energizing experience, and one I highly recommend. I’m very proud of the work that our delegation did, and the direction our organization is heading. That’s not to say there wasn’t some heartbreak: I was personally deeply saddened that DSA delegates voted to move the BDS Working Group under the International Committee against the wishes of both groups (a maneuver designed to curtail their work), and I wish we had gotten the opportunity to have a long overdue formal discussion about DSA’s positioning vis-a-vis Palestinian liberation. But I’m hopeful that the newly elected, more left-leaning NPC will help us change course by taking a firm and clear stance against Zionism, aligning DSA with the Left’s rich history of internationalism and solidarity with the oppressed.

Matthew Rambles

DSA convention was a learning experience for me. Despite my presence on steering I have spent little time engaging with the structure, activity, and membership of our national body. Fortunately for those looking to learn, the weekend was a whirlwind tour offering an introduction to these very things. I was impressed by convention — my time with our bi-annual decision making process was overwhelmingly positive despite it’s flaws. I returned home with a enhanced understanding of my role in the chapter, a greater appreciation for our organizers here in Denver, and a strong sense of affirmation for our collective project of building a better world.

Max Soo

What did I think of convention? I thought it was bullshit.

I love Denver DSA. They helped me unionize my workplace. They helped me sue my landlord. They sharpened my class analysis. They developed me as an organizer. I love Denver DSA.

But I’ve always been skeptical of DSA as a national organization — not just National DSA, but other chapters — and convention confirmed my cynicism.

I knew that there were liberals in DSA. The fact that we caveat our socialism with “democratic” is in itself a perpetuation of anti-communist liberal propaganda. But it was disheartening to see just how many there were; and not just fringe members, but active, committed ones. This was apparent in how the delegation voted on resolutions and NPC candidates.

I also felt DSA had a colonial conception of democracy and that was also confirmed by the inaccessibility in language and time-requirement of the compendium, fetishization of Robert’s Rules, and superficial debate format.

And don’t even get me started on the half-assed COVID protocols and reckless, ableist behavior of participants that, paired with the pandemic justice resolution not making the agenda, felt more like we were cosplaying caution than actually protecting ourselves and our communities.

The only redeemable quality of convention was the time I got to spend deepenng my relationships with my Denver DSA comrades and a few other DSA delegates. But at that end of the day, that made it worth it.

Mitch

There was a thrumming energy to being in a room with 1000+ other socialists, hearing the first cheers roll across the crowd as we kicked off the first day of convention. That energy spilled off of the convention floor into foyers, hallways, and the hotel bar, as I met delegates eager to share their work and to hear about Denver’s. To me, DSA convention’s best aspect was the generative conversations when you get that mass of organizers together from across the country. Talking to NYC comrades about how their tenant organizing is structured, hearing about East Bay’s transit rider canvasses, or how Ferguson continues to shape the terrain for left politics in St. Louis. 

Our theory of change is relational – building personal connections and moving that power. That’s fundamentally a two-way street: as organizers our understanding of the world is changed by practice, the conversations we have with others. And sharpening our analysis of our own conditions is made only more effective when talking to other organizers who have done similar work and taken time for reflection. However, for me the most important aspect of building relationships at convention was emotional. Some call it “vibes,” but there’s nothing to deepen your engagement to the work like being reminded of the thousands of DSA members nationwide who also share in the struggle, to hear the first cheers roll across a crowd of comrades fighting for another world. 

Skye O’Toole

As a first time convention delegate, I wasn’t sure what to expect in Chicago. I had heard stories about past conventions, both from chapter comrades and online figureheads who had been delegates in the past. Their recountings had been mostly negative, with many recalling stories of drawn out procedural fights, name-calling, and exhausting marathon sessions on the convention floor. So when this convention was, in large part, civil, collaborative and empowering, I was pleasantly surprised.

Overall, being in a room with 1000 socialists, hailing from San Diego to Maine, was an inspiring experience. It truly instilled in me the gravity of DSA, the potential we have, and the strength we have already built nationwide. It was an incredible experience to get to converse with comrades from hundreds of other chapters, all of whom have a different conception of socialism and the path we need to take to build it. I learned so much and received so much inspiration for programs to develop in our own chapter from the chats I had with others at convention. And many a night I stayed up late, having hours-long conversations with comrades from across the country about our life stories, delving deep into the many experiences in our lives which had led us there, to Chicago. 

As for the actual substance of convention, I was excited to see the passage of several resolutions which I believe will materially strengthen our org; such as MSR-3, which creates two, full-time, national co-chairs tasked with building up DSA’s public image, CR-4, which funded and emboldened the International Committee to continue it’s exceptional work in building connections with the global left and CR-8 which strengthened financial and logistical support to YDSA in order to ensure a strong socialist youth movement on campuses across the US. Decisions like these make me excited to watch the future of DSA and see what we can do when we build the external and internal supports needed to build a strong, consistent organization.

But there were also some major disappointments; most of all, the incredibly slim passage of NPC-8, which folded the BDS working group — one of the most successful arms of National DSA, which has done incredible work building and aiding the movement against Zionism in the United States — into the International Committee, without the consent of either. Knowing that its passage means that DSA will be delegitimized in the eyes of the grassroots Palestinian solidarity movement, the results are a gut punch, jeopardizing the pro-Palestinian stance of our organization that hardworking comrades in the BDS working group (including members of our own chapter) helped to foster.

But despite these big wins and losses, a lot of the other floor discussion felt pretty divorced from the realities of our organizing at the chapter level, concerned with national level disagreements and (all too often) personal animosities between National’s most involved members. While there were no shortage of delegates who were incredible organizers – strike captains, union salts, tenant unionists, grassroots elected officials, ride-or-die abolitionists, all of whom were there in there in a genuine commitment to building a stronger DSA – there were others who seemingly spent their time at convention pulling Robert’s Rules maneuvers for less noble agendas. To a certain extent, it felt like some delegates were there not because they wanted to put in the hard word deliberating on the key organizational questions facing DSA but rather because they wanted to defend their organizing turf from rival caucuses, keeping one working group or another as little fiefdoms for their particular tendency. While I don’t doubt that most of those delegates believe in the socialist mission, it felt like they often treated their own comrades like enemies, demonizing rival caucuses, not the capitalist class, as the primary enemy. I’m not, by any means, saying that caucusing is bad when it’s based on principled differences over organizational strategy. But I do think some delegates had a warped view, seeing “their side” — not DSA — as the thing they came to Chicago to fight for.

Despite my disillusionment with some of the factional divides and debates which dominated sections of the floor debate, I ended the convention feeling empowered that our organization, finding our bearings in a post-Bernie world, came together to chart a relatively healthy course for the next two years. I left with a feeling of hope in my heart, a hope that despite some of the mistakes that I believe occurred at this convention, our organization can learn, grow, and correct course. But most of all a hope that, by next convention, we will be that much closer to achieving socialism in our lifetime.

Stephanie Caulk

Overall, I’m really grateful for the opportunity to attend the national convention. One of my favorite parts of the convention was meeting DSAers from all over the country and making connections with comrades who are organizing in different states. I also appreciated the opportunity to make connections with the members of the other Colorado DSA chapters. I think it is essential that we continue these relationships with other DSA chapters, especially in Colorado. I also think that a benefit of attending the national convention was learning more about how national works. Until I went to the convention, I had no clue how national operated. Knowing how national works will allow me to help influence the national direction of DSA, and has emboldened me to take advantage of the national resources that we have at our disposal. One thing that I disliked about the convention was how inaccessible the parliamentary procedure was. In the future, I think we should make sure that our delegates are prepared to navigate the aspects of parliamentary procedure that typically are not used in Denver general meetings.

Percentage of convention delegates from a Colorado chapter: 2.4%

Percentage of convention delegates from the Denver chapter: 1.58%

Number of States with no chapter delegations at convention: 8

State with the most delegates and chapters: California

Number of Items which did not make the agenda: 15

Number of items on the final (approved) consent agenda: 9

Total number of items which had recorded votes: 37

Percentage of recorded votes that over 75% of Denver delegates voted yes on: 54.05%

Percentage of recorded votes that over 75% of Denver delegates voted no on: 13.51%

Number of items which were referred to the NPC (were on the agenda but not voted on): 5

Percentage of Denver delegates who voted to amend the agenda: 92.86%

Number of Denver delegates in a caucus at the time of convention: 1

Number of previously uncaucused Denver delegates who openly intend to join a caucus after convention: 3

Number of Colorado delegates who spoke at the microphone: 3

Portion of Denver delegates who ranked a Denverite as their top candidate: 12/13

Number of Denver (& Colorado) delegates whose NPC ballot was not counted due to a technical error: 2

Percentage of times a Colorado delegate did not vote on a recorded measure: 4.94%

Percentage of times a Colorado delegate abstained on a measure: 4.58%

Average margin by which a voted-on NPC recommendation passed or failed: 119 votes

Measure which passed by the narrowest margin: NPC Recommendation #8 – Move the BDS-WG to the International Committee (as amended)

Margin by which NPC Recommendation #8 passed: 17 votes

Measure which failed by the narrowest margin: Motion to Reconsider CB-1 – Democratize DSA

Margin by which Motion to Reconsider CB-1 failed: 8 votes

Measure which passed by the widest margin: NPC Recommendation #3 – Division of the Secretary-Treasurer Role

Percentage of votes for NPC Recommendation #3: 99.43%

Measure which failed by the widest margin: MSR-4-C: Conducting Vacancy Elections Using Regions

Percentage of votes against MSR-4-C: 96.25%

Number of NECC Amendments and Member-submitted Resolutions addressing DSA’s orientation towards it’s elected officials: 3 (+ 1 divided question)

Measure with the most voted-on amendments: CR-6 – National Electoral Committee Concensus Resolution

Number of Colorado (and Denver) delegates who voted against CR-6-O – Run DSA Candidates for School Boards: 2

Number of Colorado delegates who voted against CR6 – Nat’l Electoral Committee Concensus Resolution: 0

Percentage of Denver delegates who voted against CR-2 – GND Commission Consensus Resolution: 57.14%

Percentage of Colorado delegates who voted for CR-2: 54.55%

Percentage of Convention delegates who voted for MSR-21 – A Fighting Campaign for Reproductive Rights & Trans Liberation: 61.85%

Percentage of Colorado delegates who voted against MSR-21: 30.43%

Percentage of Denver delegates who voted for MSR-21: 93.33%

Number of member-submitted Constitutional/Bylaws changes which made it to a vote: 1

Number of recorded votes on Member-submitted Resolutions (including their amendments and a divided question): 9

Number of recorded votes on National Committee Concensus Resolutions (including their amendments): 16

Percentage of votes in which both of Denver’s NPC candidates voted the same way: 28.57%

Percentage of votes in which both of Denver’s NPC candidates voted the same way (including occasions where one or both did not vote):  21.62%

Number of returning NPC members: 1

Tendency with the most members on the new NPC: Groundwork

Portion of seats held by the largest tendency on the NPC: ¼ 

Tendencies that elected 100% of their candidates to the NPC: Bread & Roses, Red Star, Marxist Unity Group

NPC Members who tied for 1st place: Alex Pellitteri (NYC, B&R), Laura Wadlin (Portland, B&R), Megan Romer (At-Large, Red Star)

NPC Members who tied for 15th place: Renée Paradis (East Bay, SMC), Colleen Johnston (Denver, SMC)

Total number of NPC candidates: 41

Value of a YDSA Co-Chair’s vote on the NPC: ½ 

Chapters that are home to the YDSA Co-Chairs: University of Florida, University of Central Florida

Chapters with the largest representation on the NPC: Denver, Portland

Issue #2 is The Pika Press’ coverage of the November 2022 elections. It was originally intended to be published in Spring 2023 but could not be due to capacity constraints. It is now being released from the vault.

Articles

Every Defeat, an Opportunity: The Silver Lining in NEWR Denver’s Failure and The Future of DDSA’s Housing Justice Committee by Alex Yukhananov — a deep dive into the 2022 No Eviction Without Representation campaign in Denver and its implications for our housing justice organizing.

Electoral is a sprint; Socialism is a marathon by Mary Imgrund — a reflection on why elections are relevant to the struggle for socialism.

Too Long Didn’t Read: A Solo Socialist Reading Club Part 2 by Erica Curtis — a recurring Pika Press feature summarizing the literaure of the day. This edition covers Bhasker Sunkara’s The ABCs of Socialism.

ISSUE #2

By Alex Yukhananov

There was a sense of cautious optimism at Tom’s Starlight among NEWR (No Eviction Without Representation) volunteers. It was a mild night in Denver, and volunteers from Initiated Ordinances 305, 306, and 307 came together for an election night party. Future political hopefuls were politely and awkwardly shilling, volunteers were huddled over phones, and newcomers were just happy to be there. A free drink can set a tone. 

Talking to fellow volunteers at the party, I gleaned a hopeful yet nervous certainty. Some volunteers felt that Initiated Ordinance 305 would pass with a sizable margin, however, there were a few notable hold outs. NEWR veterans Robert Adams and Ryan Rasmussen tempered their expectations. Their enthusiasm was quelled by the conversations they had with everyday voters. They knew predictions meant little in the face of $528,246.96 in opposition spending, while NEWR, the organizing force behind Initiated Ordinance 305, spent $141,463.54. They knew how the opposition defined the narrative and how it impacted everyday voters. I was hopeful it would pass, perhaps too hopeful. We all were. 

At 7 PM on November 8^th with 23.7 per cent of the votes counted, 39.68 per cent for and 60.32 per cent against Initiated Ordinance 305. The official result came on November 21^st, 42.51 per cent for and 57.49 per cent against Initiated Ordinance 305. It was a devastating loss; however, every failure has the potential to blossom into something greater. The long and rich history and tradition of economic justice movements informs us that we will fail more often than we win, but when we win, we shift the needle ever so slightly toward a more just and fair world. NEWR sparked a chapter in Denver Democratic Socialists of America (DDSA) Housing Justice Committee (HJC) and brought about new opportunities and avenues for the HJC. 

Four months after the November 2022 election, I contacted Robert Adams and Ryan Rasmussen to understand how NEWR formed, NEWR’s struggles and successes, how NEWR shaped DDSA’s Housing Justice Committee, and how NEWR shaped their activism.

In early 2020, members of the HJC helped organize a building in East Denver. “We made pretty good progress. We made news, held meetings, and the tenants were ready to submit a petition to the property managers, but then COVID-19 hit,” said Rasmussen. “The fight went from organizing tenants to how am I going to pay for my apartment.” He noted that the eviction moratorium did not go into effect immediately. The CDC’s moratorium began on September 4^th, 2020, nearly six months after Colorado’s first batch of recorded COVID-19 cases. 

Shifting from tenant organizing to providing assistance to tenants facing eviction, the HJC began tracking evictions using a web scraper maintained by Rasmussen. “We started scraping eviction cases from the court’s docket and reached out to tenants directly,” said Rasmussen. In 2020 and 2021, there were 2,912 and 4,894 eviction filings in Denver County respectively, a relative decrease from preceding years due to increased government assistance and enacting the eviction moratorium. Even with this decrease, effectively mitigating evictions in Denver was a monumental task. It was far from sustainable and something needed to change. 

In late 2020, two developments would nudge members of the HJC to adopt NEWR in Denver and to ultimately embark on a proactive electoral strategy. The first development occurred on November 3^rd, 2020 in Boulder. Voters in Boulder approved Ballot Issue 2B, providing legal representation to tenants facing eviction, by a large margin. The measure passed with 58.61 per cent of the vote and established Ordinance No. 8412. Ordinance No. 8412, or No Eviction Without Representation, mandates the city of Boulder to “establish, run and fully fund a program to provide legal representation to tenants who face the loss of housing in eviction and administrative proceedings” and “provide rental assistance for persons that are vulnerable to eviction.” Additionally, it creates a tenant’s committee comprising of five members. It’s funded by a $75 per year license fee on rental dwelling units, resulting in an estimated $1.9 million per year for the program. 

The second development happened on December 1^st, 2020, when HB 20-1009 went into effect. HB 20-1009 requires Colorado courts to suppress eviction records while in legal proceedings and to continue suppressing these records if the tenant wins. This law partially combats tenant blacklisting, an insidious practice used by landlords and property managers to leverage housing court records against prospective tenants and using these records as a pretext to deny rental applications. 

HB 20-1009 hindered HJC’s eviction outreach capabilities. NEWR passing in Boulder however, was an example of what is possible. Adopting a NEWR-like campaign was the next logical step in the HJC’s evolution. It was HJC shifting from retail, door-to-door eviction mitigation, to wholesale and city-wide systematic reform. 

“We had to learn how to put a measure on the ballot, we had to start from the basics,” said Rasmussen. Learning on the spot, Rasmussen and other HJC members sought professional guidance. They consulted and worked with Mike McCorkle, a lawyer and a fellow Denver DSA member. They learned how to properly operate a campaign in Denver, manage finances, gather signatures, meet critical deadlines, mobilize, and organize.

In the summer of 2021, Robert Adams joined the NEWR campaign and became a member of NEWR’s three-person steering committee, serving with Mary Imgrund and Mitch Weldon. “We started as a flat hierarchy and eventually had a need for more direction.” Recognizing the power of both vertical and horizontal hierarchies, NEWR settled on something in between. However, by not fully committing to either organizational structure, the campaign at times lacked a clear division of labor. On top of that, Adams added “we also had an enormous amount of work. We had a very ambitious scope, relative to the number of people involved. In retrospect, we did a lot with the capacity we had.”

Leveraging the organizational capacity of DDSA and other organizations, NEWR superseded the number of signatures required and successfully got on the ballot for the November 2022 election. It was an enormous effort and NEWR leaned heavily on the support of over one hundred volunteers and countless small dollar donations. The ballot initiative in Denver mirrored Boulder’s Issue 2B. A key difference was increasing the number of members on the tenant committee from five to seven.

I asked Rasmussen what NEWR could have done better. “The loss margin was proof that it wasn’t one thing,” said Rasmussen. “The obvious answer is not enough organizing and more canvassing, but that’s pretty much the case for every campaign. The TABOR language and opposition spending likely did the most harm.”

Rephrasing my question to Adams, I asked if he would change anything. He shared similar sentiments to Rasmussen and added more context. “If I were to change anything, I would have reframed the ballot language to be as palatable as possible. Polling suggested voters in Denver were more likely to agree that landlords were justified.” Even though the average voter in Denver has more in common with a tenant getting evicted than a landlord carrying out the eviction, there is more of a semblance of personal responsibility in Denver. It’s more of an “if you didn’t pay rent, then you deserve it” attitude, without much consideration for the underlying causes of evictions, and not fully understanding that evictions can stem from a multitude of factors outside of non-payment exclusively. In addition to this general underlying sentiment, the opposition launched a generic “No On 305” campaign, bombarding social media with ads containing a very simple and powerful pain point for voters: rental prices can increase if this succeeds, why risk it. 

Roberts added, “I think the fee likely confused some voters too.” Roberts referred to the $75 yearly fee on landlords and surmised that voters possibly confusing it for a monthly fee. More so, Denver voters may have intuited that this fee would result in an increase in rent. The initiative made no guarantees that this fee passed via increasing rental costs and renters already have little power in negotiating the cost of rent. The astronomically high cost of rent in Denver likely made tenants more sensitive to any legislation that suggested imposing a fee on landlords. Time and time again, landlords simply increase rent without a viable reason. When they have a reason to increase it, they will use it in a disproportional manner. Voters in Denver likely thought, “I know I’m not going to get evicted, why risk raising my own rent?” The open secret is, landlords can and will increase rents disproportionate to the value they add and they do it without reason. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

In the aftermath of NEWR, both Rasmussen and Adams echo similar takeaways from the campaign. They don’t regret doing it, and NEWR was a necessary effort that grew DDSA’s capacity and tested what the HJC was capable of. However, if they had to do it again they probably wouldn’t to that extent. Neither Rasmussen or Adams want to dedicate their time exclusively to one colossal effort again. This is an understandable sentiment, considering they spent between one to two years of their life, essentially embracing a second full time job. It is extraordinarily difficult and an uphill battle, but without NEWR and the push toward electoralism, the HJC would not be where it is now. NEWR did amazing things with the resources available, and it pushed DSA to be more active in electoral and legislative pursuits.

For example, DDSA is a part of the Colorado Homes for All (COHFA) steering committee, a working coalition made up a wide swath of organizations dedicated to guaranteeing housing as a human right in Colorado. COHFA helped craft and drive house bills 23-1115 and 23-1171. The former would lift the state ban on local control of rents and the latter would require just cause for evictions. Both bills passed their respective committees and HB23-1115 recently passed the house, with 40 representatives voting for it and 24 voting against it. This is a huge development in housing justice in Colorado, and NEWR set the HJC toward this direction. 

Rasmussen and Adams both prefer working toward smaller victories and pursuing a multipronged approach to housing justice. Rather than dedicating their time to an all-or-nothing strategy, they are focusing on DDSA’s legislative efforts, working on promoting and supporting DDSA endorsed candidates, tenant organizing, continuing on growing the Housing Justice Committee, and generally building power outside of electoral politics.

~~

Alex Yukhananov is a member of the Denver DSA Steering Committee.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written in spring 2023 as part of an issue on local elections and the midterms (Issue #2) which was not able to be published at the time due to capacity constraints. It is now being released from the vault.

Socialists are taking on Tacoma City Hall and winning. My four guests today are all good friends and fellow leaders of Tacoma DSA. We're in the midst of a major ballot initiative campaign to win the strongest tenant protections in Washington state, and on the cusp of winning DSA’s first seat on Tacoma City Council for Jamika Scott, a deeply-rooted Black leader and democratic socialist.

In this episode, we tell the story of how Tacoma City Council, on behalf of the landlord lobby, tried to defeat our Tenant Bill of Rights with a watered-down, competing ballot measure – and how we took them to court and won, getting their deceptive measure removed from the November ballot.

We discuss the labor movement’s strong support for our Initiative #1, the debate in labor around Jamika's campaign, and how these fights are positioning DSA to help transform Tacoma city politics in the years ahead.

Find out more about Initiative #1, the Tenant Bill of Rights, at Tacoma4All.org, and follow our campaign on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter @Tacoma4All

Tacoma DSA endorsed candidate Jamika Scott’s website is jamikafortacoma.com

Check out The Stranger's article, “Tacoma is the Revolution,” which we reference in this episode.

Become a Monthly Sustainer of SOCIALIST SOUND

This podcast is only possible due to the generous monthly contributions of Seattle DSA members and supporters who pay my part-time salary as the chapter’s Communications Organizer. To sustain this podcast, and our wider communications work, please become a monthly contributor at seattledsa.org/podcast

Thanks to Jason Cory for editing this episode!

ISSUE #2

by Mary Imgrund

After our weekly DSA joint canvass launched, the staffers quietly typed away at our sticker-covered Macbooks while a few candidates discussed burnout, frustration, and rage on the campaign trail. When we were alone, the impromptu co-working meet became more akin to a therapy session. I smiled faintly, “I feel like I wake up every day and set myself on fire.” 

Self-immolation may be necessary to get through the desperate, flailing race of election season. However, our goals as socialist organizers require more care and more intimate discussions that the race to April 4th preclude. 

At our last electoral meeting, we discussed the challenges inherent to our dual-purpose goals: organizing members into electoral and up to be leaders and the immediate needs of turning out canvassers, creating graphics, setting logistics for events, doing fundraising, and everything else that needs to be done yesterday on the campaign trail. 

I bemoaned my yearning for longer-term discussions about what our goals are, what socialism looks like at the municipal election, and what we can accomplish in the next 5 or 10 years. And a member brought up the core contradiction of doing this work: Electoralism is a sprint. Socialism is a marathon. 

So how can we run two races at the same time with wildly different needs? 

To start, the idea of contradiction is nothing new in leftist spaces. 

In Mao’s treatise “On Contradiction,” written in 1937, he suggests that contradictions are what define a thing and without contradiction, a thing loses its identity. A classic Marxist interpretation of this is that the primary “contradiction” that defines every society is class struggle. 

Mao continues that primary contradictions, say, capitalism, always create “secondary” contradictions, such as between imperialists and their colonies that require the “primary” contradiction, in this case, a capitalist society. These “secondary” contradictions flow downstream from the primary contradiction, but may often become more important or the most prevalent in society. 

I find this to perhaps be one of the strongest points from Mao’s writing on contradictions because it makes a very clear case that in order to fight capitalism, we must strongly oppose white nationalism and christian identity movements in order to effectively struggle for the working class. Almost 60 years later, the introduction of the idea of intersectionality, originating in critical race studies, added much-needed clarity and definitions to many of these overlapping and cascading series of “contradictions,” thanks to Black feminist scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw. 

In his book Contradictions of Real Socialism: The Conductor and the Conducted, 

Michael Lebowitz explores the “real socialism” movement originating from 20th—century socialist societies to distinguish themselves from abstract, theoretical socialism. He finds that many of the contradictions within these “real socialism” societies, such as the separation of thinking and doing, created the conditions in which a nascent capitalist class emerged and was the source of the crises of “real socialism.” 

Instead, he argues, socialists must go beyond “the hierarchy inherent in the relation of conductor and conductor to create the conditions in which people can transform themselves through their conscious cooperation and practice – a society of free and associated producers.” 

Many have also written about my specific dilemma working in electoral politics. Not only are we asked to be at once the “always on” campaign staffer and the community organizer, but we’re also asked to grapple with the contradictions of electoralism itself. 

We acknowledge that institutions like the City Council or the Mayor’s office are inherently bourgeois institutions that were created to uphold the will of capital; meanwhile, we must also fight like hell for every crumb and every concession we can get from these institutions. We have to run the best campaigns and play the game of professional electoral politics to be the most effective in creating the best relationships and getting the best concessions from these institutions. 

We acknowledge the limitations of electoralism while working within those constraints to begin undoing frankly genocidal policies against the poor and working class as many of Denver’s current mayoral candidates promote (arrests as a response to homelessness? Are you serious?). 

So, in that, I become more comfortable with the two races our committee is running right now. Many of us are sprinting. Others are on the marathon track. Most of us change which race we’re running on a daily basis. We need to phone bank and while doing so, begin imagining what the next five years of socialist electoral activism can look like. We need to knock on doors and also spend time having long and deep conversations with our comrades about what our goals and shared values are on the electoral stage. 

We need to elect all of our endorsed candidates on April 4th and get right back to work on April 5th promoting bills to defend tenants with our comrades in Housing Justice, strengthening our relationships with our new electeds, decide what our legislative priorities are, and even support our neighbors in Aurora who are having their own election soon. 

My legs are tired, but I’m still running. If you want to get involved, join our electoral meetings (that I promise only sometimes take over 2 hours), bi-weekly Mondays at 6pm. 

~~

Mary Imgrund is the former chair of the Denver DSA Electoral Committee.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written in spring 2023 as part of an issue on local elections and the midterms (Issue #2) which was not able to be published at the time due to capacity constraints. It is now being released from the vault.

ISSUE #2

by Erica Curtis

The goal of the Political Education Committee is to further every comrade’s ability to thoroughly articulate both what we are doing to further socialism and exactly why we are doing it. To assist in this effort, we would like to introduce a new segment of The Pike Press, in which a different book on a socialist theme will be summarized for readers’ convenient consumption. We will start where so much of education begins, with the ABCs. Edited and published by Jacobin Magazine, The ABCs of Socialism teaches the bedrock concepts of socialism through a simple question-and-answer model. You’ll hear familiar questions, learn new information, and obtain surprising answers. Let’s get ready to learn. 

Question One: Isn’t America already kind of socialist?

People like to argue that America is a socialist country because its government uses tax dollars to execute collective projects to serve its citizens. Stop and consider that not all collective activity is socialist activity. The police department is a collective organization funded by taxpayer dollars, but is anyone under the delusion that the police department is there to uplift citizens and support striking comrades? The conflation of government activity with socialism is an unfortunate trend, especially when it comes to the (massive) amount of spending involved. When we consider state activity, we need to ask ourselves two basic questions: 

1. Does it reinforce or undermine the power of those who own capital?
2. Does it increase our subordination to market discipline or offer us more freedom from its demands?

Another unfortunate reality is that the rich and powerful intend to stay that way by investing heavily in political activity that promotes the status quo. In the interest of keeping things exactly as they are, the (already elected) politicians are perfectly happy to align their policy decisions to the benefit of themselves and their wealthy donors. So, winning government power and using it to disrupt the capitalist class is the necessary first step toward beginning the transition to socialism. We would do well to remember that pretenders to socialism have come to power in the past, and for true socialism to work, the administrative and political structures of government must be thoroughly democratized in order to further the cause of human freedom. This means mass popular support for the transition, direct participation in government affairs, and a dramatic overhaul of state agencies and administrative structures. We need to begin imagining and building new institutions that support this vision of a socialist democracy. 

• Answer One: No socialism isn’t just more government – it’s about democratic ownership and control.

Question 2: But at least capitalism is free and democratic, right? 

In the United States, many take for granted that freedom and democracy are inextricably connected with capitalism – even renowned economist Milton Friedman argued that capitalism was a necessary condition for both. There is historical evidence pointing to the rise of capitalism and the spread of individual freedoms and political organization. So why would socialists claim that capitalism fundamentally obstructs freedom and democracy? While capitalism has promoted the emergence of certain limited forms of freedom and democracy, it imposes a low ceiling on the further realization of both – you get a taste, but not a full serving. Freedom and democracy both lay pinned to the same core value of self-determination – the idea that people should have as much control as possible over the shape their lives will take. It is nearly impossible to take an action that will impact no one but yourself, so what we need is a set of rules to distinguish between questions of freedom and questions of democracy. Currently, this boundary is set by the distinction between public and private spheres, but this construct intentionally constrains the realization of freedom and reduces the scope of democracy. We can see this apparent reality when we consider that:

1. “Work or Starve” Isn’t Freedom
2. Capitalists Decide
3. Nine to Five is Tyranny
4. Governments Have to Serve the Interests of Private Capitalists
5. Elites Control the Political System

These consequences are endemic to capitalism as an economic system. While public constraints can be put in place to erode the boundary between private and public, thereby palliating these freedom-impeding features of capitalism, freedom and democracy cannot be fully realized until capitalism is not just tamed, but overcome.

• Answer Two: It might seem that way, but genuine freedom and democracy aren’t compatible with capitalism.

Question Three: Socialism sounds good in theory, but doesn’t human nature make it impossible to realize?

“Good in theory, bad in practice” is the dismissive reply we are often faced with when we try to discuss the possibility of a socialist reality. The follow up to this reply is often even darker: that capitalism is much more suited to human nature (with human nature being defined by competition and veniality). Humans are not simple creatures; we are capable of both unspeakable evils and remarkable kindnesses. As socialists we are committed to the view that we all strive for a freer and more fulfilling world because everyone, everywhere, cares about their freedom and fulfillment (this is part of human nature, too!). While resistance to exploitation and oppression are a consistent feature of our human history, mass collective action is a rarer event because of the inherent risks. However, sometimes, people do step up and take risks, and one of our principle tasks as socialists is to support these movements. To this end, we know that we will be helped, not hurt, by our shared nature.

• Answer Three: Our shared nature actually helps us build and define the values of a more just society.

Question Four: Don’t the rich deserve to keep most of their money?

When debating taxes, the conversation often leads to an argument about whether or not your iPhone would exist without the high income (and driving incentive) that goes to creators like Steve Jobs. If we tax innovators like this, won’t we all be worse off? First, we must understand what taxes are and what non-socialists think about them. Tax policy does two things in a capitalist society: resource control and allocation.

1. It determines what share of the total economic pie will be managed by the public, and how much will be left to the use of private actors ( = resource control).
2. It stipulates how that public share is divided up between the competing needs and wants of individuals, organizations, and corporations ( = allocation).

The socialist view of redistribution within a capitalist society must reject an important premise at play in nearly all tax policy debates: That pre-tax income is something earned solely by individual effort and possessed privately before the state intervenes to take part of it. We must realize and buy into the idea that wealth is a social product – that none of us would have any wages or resources without the work and contributions put forth by all of us. With this in mind, it makes sense that the socialist case for taxation and progressive redistribution is built from three basic factors of how capitalism works:

1. Personal incomes and corporate profits are not simply the result of individual work and business competition.
2. The class inequality that results from making this social product is relational.
3. Redistribution through taxation is a means of extending individual freedom: both negative freedom (“freedom from”) and positive freedom (“ability to”). 

Any tax policy that divides up the social product in a way that leaves some in luxury and some in destitution cannot be said to promote freedom. Progressive redistribution through taxation is both a means to redress structural inequalities and the primary way we can expand and extend freedom to as many people as possible.

• Answer Four: Wealth is socially created – redistribution just allows more people to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Question Five: Will socialists take my Kenny Loggins records?

When asked to imagine a socialist reality, non-socialists often end up envisioning a global commune in which all objects are shared, we’re forced to wear the same (organic hemp?) outfit, and no one is allowed to keep anything to themselves – say, for example, their beloved Kenny Loggins records. In reality, the socialist vision is a world in which misery and oppression are overcome and every person can reach their full potential, all while keeping those Kenny Loggins records. The crucial distinction here? A misunderstanding of vocabulary. Personal property – things meant for individual consumption, like your private record collection – is perfectly welcome. Private property – things that give the people who own them power over those who don’t, like the apartment building you rent from your landlord – is immoral and should be done away with. The power of private property inevitably leads to grave inequalities between people. Private property gives the “owner” the right to hire and fire at will, to supply unfair working conditions that most of us would rather reject, and to control how much of the profit of a company goes to the workers who actually created the product that made that profit possible in the first place. This type of inequality can most neatly be described as exploitation: someone is directed to work under the direction of, and for the benefit of, someone else. Exploitation is the key source of profits and wealth in a capitalist society. So what’s to be done about this? Removing the existence of the private ownership of property is the radical but necessary leap to be made here. This would make room for democratic control over our workplaces and the institutions that shape and sustain our communities, and is the key to ending exploitation. Eliminating private property enables us to all retain our personal property: no need to go to pawn your Kenny Loggins records to make the rent.

• Answer Five: Socialists want a world without private property, not personal property. You can keep your terrible music. 

Question Six: Doesn’t socialism always end up in dictatorship?

If you attended an American public school, you learned that the Cold War was one fought between American freedom and Soviet tyranny, with democratic capitalism being the decisive winner. From this perspective, it was easy to conflate all the evils of the Soviet Union with socialism. If you look a little beyond the standard public school history curriculum, it becomes obvious that socialists the world over have been consistent opponents of authoritarianism (leftist and rightist) and ardent defenders of civil and political rights. The socialist and anticolonial movements of the twentieth century understood that the revolutionary democratic goals of liberty, equality, and fraternity (anyone remember their high school French?) could not be realized if unequal economic power can be transformed into political power (i.e.: State-owned means of production) and if workers are dominated by capital. Governments that prioritize state-led industrialization over democratic rights cannot call themselves socialist. Socialists must align themselves with independent and democratic movements, not with oligarchic States masquerading as such. The real question is not whether socialism leads to dictatorship, but whether socialist movements can overcome the anti-democratic regimes that already exist.

• Answer Six: Socialism is often conflated with authoritarianism. But historically, socialists have been among democracy’s staunchest advocates.

Question Seven: Is socialism a Western concept?

After a period of dormancy, socialism returned to the minds of many Americans during the 2008 economic crisis. It was such a hot topic that candidates for president felt comfortable discussing it on the national stage. This drew a lot of attention, and counterattack, to the socialist cause. A popular assumption among its critics is that socialism’s supposedly Western (read: white) can’t speak to the struggles of oppression and discrimination in the Global South (read: black and brown). This criticism falls apart when you consider three obvious realities:

1. Capitalists everywhere see workers as a source of profit.
2. The laws of the market are not fair or impartial.
3. Against all odds, workers invariably fight back.

If the logic of capital is universal, and the resistance against it is as well, then socialism cannot be a Eurocentric ideology. Diverse leaders from across the globe saw socialism as a theory and practice relevant to their experience. The reason for this is that socialism identifies and rejects the source of dehumanization – private ownership and exploitation – and instead chooses to fight for a better world. This is a genuinely universal and human truth. 

• Answer Seven: Socialism is not Eurocentric because the logic of capital is universal – and so is resistance against it.

Question Eight: What about racism? Don’t socialists only care about class?

In 2013 we heard the clarion cry of the black social justice movement: “Black Lives Matter.” It’s been ten years since this seemingly obvious statement first made headlines, but the racism that spawned it is far older. Understanding the roots of racism in America is critical for eradicating it. To understand why the United States seems so resistant to racial equality, we have to look at the way American society is organized under capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system based on the exploitation of the many by the few. The top ideological tool used in this effort is “divide and conquer.” Africans were first dehumanized in order to justify using them as a source of forced labor, then they were bequeathed second class citizenship after Emancipation, making them vulnerable to economic coercion and manipulation. This was the political economy of American racism that African Americans have long found themselves in. For socialists in the United States, recognizing the centrality of racism in dividing the class that has the actual power to undo capitalism has typically meant that socialists have been heavily involved in campaigns and social movements to end racism. Racial divisions destroy the bonds of solidarity necessary to collectively challenge employers, landlords, and elected officials. To build a genuine, unified mass movement capable of challenging capital, ordinary whites must be won over to an anti-racisit program – we ALL need to be on the same page. The challenge for socialists today is the same as it ever was: being centrally involved in struggles against racism while also fighting for a world based on human need, not profit.

• Answer Eight: We actually think that the struggle against racism is central to undoing the ruling class’s power.

Question Nine: Aren’t socialism and feminism sometimes in conflict?

Socialism and feminism have a long, and at times fraught, relationship. Feminists accuse socialists of overemphasizing class, and socialists accuse feminists of focusing on individual rights while ignoring the structural divides between women. Ultimately, the divide between socialism and feminism is an unnecessary one. Socialists should be feminists because women are doubly oppressed – exploited in the workplace and unrecognized as workers in the social reproduction of labor. Feminists should be socialists because, even if we root out sexism, the inherent contradictions of capitalism will persist. Ultimately, feminists and socialists will benefit the most by supporting an anti-capitalist strategy that challenges both the drives of capital and the ingrained norms of sexism. Supporting projects to increase collective, democratic control over institutions central to our home, school, and work lives would give all women and men more power, autonomy, and the possibility for a better life.

• Answer Nine: Ultimately the goals of radical feminism and socialism are the same – justice and equality for all people.

Question Ten: Wouldn’t a more democratic world just mean a bigger environmental crisis? 

Human activity has transformed the entire planet in ways that threaten all of us (though some more than others). Capitalism is wreaking havoc on the world we live in, and critics are right to argue that a socialist society would do harm, too. We know that capitalism will handle worsening environmental crises by protecting the rich at the cost of the poor, but what should socialism aspire to do instead? The goal of a socialist society is not to clamp down on popular consumption, but to create a society that emphasizes quality of life over quantity of things. Some activities that harm the environment will still be a feature of a socialist society (extractives, power plants, industrial factories) but the difference is that these decisions about producing and implementing new technologies will be based on democratically chosen aims, being conscious of the harms we’ll accept and paying the costs of minimizing this damage (rather than cutting corners to turn a profit). We will decide together how we use our collective resources – including the land, oceans, and atmosphere – and we will recognize that we share the planet with species other than humans. With our needs provided for, we can realize our human potential in the context of leisurely social relationships to other humans and other species, with enough for everyone and time for what we will.

• Answer Ten: Under socialism, we would make decisions about resource use democratically, with regard to human needs and values rather than maximizing profit.

Question Eleven: Are socialists pacifists? Aren’t some wars justified? 

Nothing highlights the brutality of the capitalist system quite like war. The subordination of human needs to the logic of profit and power is never so clear as it is at the end of a “successful” mission of plunder and conquest. Capitalists are happy to lean on their government’s militaries to enforce the “rules of the game” in the global economy and compete more effectively against other ruling classes. In the short term, socialists support mass movements fighting against wars waged by capitalist governments. In the long run, we must work to translate these movements into a broader struggle for the radical transformation of society along democratic lines. If socialists are opposed to the wars fought by their governments, that does not mean they are pacifists. The question is who is waging the war and on behalf of what interests or policies. Ultimately the socialist movement wants to eradicate war because it is brutal and irrational. But for now we must differentiate between the violence of those fighting to maintain injustice, and those fighting against injustice, but even these forces must be scrutinized with a critical eye. We know that racism and inequality at home, and war abroad, are interlinked. On this basis, we hope to forge an internationalist movement that can come to pose a threat to the very foundations of a system that breeds war and mass violence on a scale unprecedented in history. 

• Answer Eleven: Socialists want to eradicate war because it is brutal and irrational. But we think there’s a difference between the violence of the oppressed and that of the oppressors.

Question Twelve: Why do socialists talk so much about workers? 

Socialists are sometimes interpreted as sentimental at best, dogmatic at worst, about the plight of workers. They are the ones who suffer the most under capitalism, so doesn’t that make their suffering our top priority? Certainly there is truth to this moral argument, but there’s much more to it than that. Economic and political power is in the hands of capitalists, whose only goal is to maximize profits, which means that the condition of workers is, at best, a secondary concern to them. And that means that the system is, at its very core, unjust. The reason socialists believe that organizing the working class has to be at the center of a viable political strategy has to do with two other practical factors:

1. A diagnosis of what the sources of injustice are in modern society (i.e.: capitalist exploitation)
2. A prognosis of what are the best levers for change in a more progressive direction (i.e.: the workers being exploited by the capitalists)

Workers have the power to counter the exploitation of the capitalist class by simply refusing to play their game: just refusing to work. Capitalists rely on the great mass of workers to fulfill this role, so if the working class refuses (essentially pulling that lever of power) the capitalists will be forced to make concessions. Workers are therefore not only systematically oppressed, but are best positioned to enact real change. This combination of moral urgency and strategic force is why socialist politics is based on the working class. 

• Answer Twelve: Workers are at the heart of the capitalist system. And that’s why they are at the center of socialist politics. 

Question Thirteen: Will socialism be boring?

Socialism has often been portrayed in science fiction in gray, dystopian terms (think Kurt Vonnegut’s Herrison Bergeron or Ursula Laguine’s The Dispossessed), and it’s not hard to see why: most of the societies that have called themselves socialists have been grim and dreary. The most fanatic (committed?) among us may argue that this isn’t a question we should even consider, when weighed against the benefits of achieving democratic socialism on a grand scale. But in truth, it does matter, because you are not going to convince any great mass of people to live in a society without creativity and excitement. Capitalism lacks a lot of things, but excitement is not one of them. The biggest issue with this is that the excitement is coming from above – we either watch exciting things happen to the rich and famous, or we suffer under the brunt of the consequences for this fun. The first steps toward socialism (that we have been able to witness historically) offered both the promise of creation and the threat of destruction, but with the crucial difference that the people played an active role in determining how their world was changing. This is excitement coming from below. It is difficult to imagine how, in a society where everyone’s basic needs are met, freedom is a reality, and people’s creativity is unencumbered, this could possibly be a boring world. 

• Answer Thirteen: Socialism isn’t about inducing bland mediocrity. It’s about unleashing the creative potential of all.

~~

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written in spring 2023 as part of an issue on local elections and the midterms (Issue #2) which was not able to be published at the time due to capacity constraints. It is now being released from the vault.

Issue #1 of The Pika Press was originally published in November 2022 and distributed to Denver DSA members via internal channels. Due to unforseen technical complications, it is not possible for it to be published on this webpage at this time. However, we at The Pika Press are working hard to resolve these issues and we guarantee that Issue #1 will be made avaliable on this webpage by the second Saturday of October.