Principles of Independence
Connell H and Amy W talk about MUG’s Principles of Party Building resolution, and the direction it brings to our shared desire to build a party
Connell H & Amy W
The Sower, Art Young
What we need in the United States is not a third party, a second party, or a first party, but a party. That is to say, we have in the United States no political institution in which members work out a program which is presented to the public and in which the elected officials of that institution then follow out the program and pass it into law, it doesn’t exist. -Michael Harrington
This August, DSA members from all over the country will gather for our national convention to determine the direction of DSA for the next two years. The theme for this year is “Rebirth and Beyond: Reflecting on a decade of DSA’s growth and preparing for a decade of party building.” A convention theme can be a forgotten slogan, or it can represent an important moment in DSA’s progress towards becoming a party if we choose to make it so. Almost everyone in DSA says they want a party, but disagreement on what that means and on what timeline makes that statement almost meaningless. Marxist Unity Group has put forward the resolution “Principles of Party-Building” to allow convention to clarify what building a party means and how we should work towards that goal. The resolution commits DSA to the goal of becoming an independent, mass socialist party, then provides a set of principles defining a party and how we should build it. In this piece, we will explore a few of the principles determining what a party is and how we should approach the ballot line.
What is a party?
The very first principle of the resolution gives the definition of party that we think DSA should use:
1. The fundamental purpose of a socialist party is to be a mass association of the working class formed for collective political action. The party will be united around a democratically created program that outlines goals that, enacted together, will allow the working class to rule and end capitalism.
The conversation about the party in DSA is muddied by referring to several different matters with the same word. Party can refer to the ballot line that candidates run on, what kind of legal structure DSA is registered as, or how the organization operates more broadly. Most often, when people say DSA is not a party, this refers to the type of nonprofit DSA is registered as and that we do not have a ballot line of our own. However, a party in the Marxist political tradition is not defined by official recognition by the state through a ballot line or other legal forms. A party in the Marxist sense is a mass association of the working class for collective political action, which works to carry out a program that has been democratically set by members. This is the definition we establish in the resolution as DSA’s goal. The questions of ballot line and legal form matter but are less important than organizing for our own program, having a distinct public identity based on that program, and not taking direction from the capitalist class. A program is not just a list of campaign slogans, but a long-term strategy for what we need to win for the working class to rule.
MUG believes that DSA already functions as a political party in the Marxist sense. Chapters campaign in elections in the name of DSA across the country. Coordination of our electoral work nationally has been increasing within the National Electoral Commission, which has been working on more active support of campaigns across chapter lines to make national endorsement more meaningful. A program as the unifying banner for DSA has not yet been totally solidified, but positive steps have been taken these past few years. While imperfect, the publication of the Workers Deserve More program and its use by chapters can be seen in a way as the beginning of DSA as a party that is unified around a program. DSA has member-based democracy, from the local chapter meetings happening regularly across the country to our convention every two years. Any program adopted by DSA is the decision of members, and all our activity and campaigns are the decisions of members. The only thing we are missing is official recognition from the state on the legal form of our organization and an independent ballot line.
Party Surrogate
One of the key debates about party building is how we choose to contest elections. Our resolution states that:
5. Because of an undemocratic and uneven electoral system designed to maintain capitalist rule, DSA fights on unfavorable terrain and is pulled between the necessity of independent political action and using the ballot line of the Democratic Party. DSA’s approach is the party surrogate, acting as a party but without a dedicated ballot line.
We do not lack a ballot line out of choice or preference. The United States’ electoral system is designed to keep power out of the hands of the people and protect the two dominant parties of capital. In most of the world, political parties are membership organizations. They control who is a member and who runs in an election. Political parties as voluntary membership organizations like this simply do not exist in the United States, which has a state-run registration and primary system. Ballot access or party registration requirements are extremely restrictive compared to other countries. While not an impossible challenge, these requirements are a drain on member capacity and financial resources. They can also create perverse incentives that commit you to running for certain offices or endorsing less preferred candidates to maintain the threshold of votes needed to maintain your ballot line. This leads to unfortunate situations like a Working Families Party endorsement of Andrew Cuomo in order to stay a party.
As an extra twist of the knife, electoral systems are different state by state, putting us in a minefield of legal compliance traps. Those regulations will be selectively enforced against us, as seen in the $300,000 fine for a NYC DSA slate following Board of Elections guidance. Naked corruption and significant campaign finance mistakes are business as usual for establishment candidates of both major parties, but socialists raising a comparatively piddly sum are a prime target for enforcement. Some ballot line restrictions were put in place to suppress socialist and communist electoral efforts, and we should expect more as our successes grow.
Unfavorable electoral terrain is nothing new for socialists, who have been navigating barriers placed by the state since the mass socialist parties of the 19th century ran for Reichstag and Duma. The question of how to approach elections and the ballot line on such a skewed playing field has challenged leftists since the American party system took shape. DSA’s approach to elections is most heavily influenced by Seth Ackerman’s 2016 essay “A Blueprint for a New Party.” Ackerman described the different problems with the ballot line and the traps it sets for third party attempts, and proposed a plan to contest elections on different ballot lines while building up the strength to succeed in a system designed for two parties. This has become known as the “party surrogate” approach. With a few exceptions, almost all electoral approaches within DSA are some variety of party surrogate.
It is easy to remember the insight of Ackerman’s piece crudely as “ballot line flexibility,” but it is worth rereading to see how much of the piece discusses membership and the need for a program:
“In a genuinely democratic party, the organization’s membership, program, and leadership are bound together tightly by a powerful, mutually reinforcing connection. The party’s members are its sovereign power; they come together through a sense of shared interest or principle. Through deliberation, the members establish a program to advance those interests. The party educates the public around the program, and it serves, in effect, as the lodestar by which the party is guided. Finally, the members choose a party leadership — including electoral candidates — who are accountable to the membership and bound by the program.”
Ackerman’s piece goes far beyond mere ballot line choices and outlines how to operate as a membership-based party despite the legal barriers in the US. Without membership control and a unifying program, the party surrogate model falls apart. If you have ballot line flexibility without the other elements of the party surrogate, you are just running as Democrats.
Dirty Stay and Clean Break
Another disagreement about DSA’s electoral approach is timeline on when to leave the Democratic Party ballot line, if at all. The party surrogate approach recognizes we need to be able to maintain control of our project and move away from the Democratic Party line over time:
6. While DSA must move away from use of the Democratic Party ballot line and primaries, a ballot line is not the primary goal or indication of political independence. What matters most is bringing our independent organization and program to races whether on a Democratic, independent, or third-party ballot line.
7. When considering whether to create a ballot line of our own, losing control of our candidates to an open state-run process is a non-negotiable red line. Our ability to take independent political action is essential to preserve above all other considerations.
Most electoral positions in DSA fall somewhere on a spectrum of the party surrogate model, where we work towards being a party (in all senses) by acting as a party (in the Marxist sense). We build our independent identity and operational strength in elections across different ballot lines until we no longer need to use the Democratic Party ballot. One exception to this party surrogate consensus is the SMC-promoted "Dirty Stay” strategy. The dirty stay approach advocates that DSA should “stop pretending we are building a third-party when a better and more honest orientation already exists, one in which we are fostering a left-wing faction within the Democratic Party.” The other main exception to the party surrogate approach is the “clean break.” The clean break approach advocates for immediately stopping use of the Democratic Party ballot line in favor of independent or third party ballot lines. The clean break overweights the importance of the ballot line and emphasizes it over our program and identity. It is possible to run as an independent and not actually represent DSA, or even to prop up the Democratic establishment. It is equally possible to run as a Democrat and be fiercely oppositional, use the ballot line for our own purposes, and promote DSA and its program. Nothing about the label next to the checkbox guarantees this, this entirely depends on the campaigns DSA members choose to run.
Michael Kinnucan’s piece “Political Parties are Illegal in the United States” correctly brings up many of the pitfalls of the state-run registration and primary system that would come with official party status and a ballot line of our own. We agree with Kinnucan’s assessment of the problems with the ballot line, but part of our disagreement on solutions comes from using a different definition of party. Neal Meyer of Bread and Roses responded with a piece arguing that the impossibility of removing members from a given party registration is overstated. This is interesting, but unenrolling members or candidates only addresses a piece of the problem. It may be legal to remove members from state-run party registration, but this seems certain to be an impractical administrative burden even presuming the state is cooperative. Decisions about our electoral work are not only who to run, but where and with what prioritization. With an open primary system, anyone could run as a DSA candidate with or without our endorsement. Unless the election laws in a given area are changed so that we can maintain control of our electoral program, we should not seek party status or a ballot line at the cost of losing our ability to control our project.
Party Surrogate in Form, Clean Break in Content
MUG’s electoral orientation can be described with the shorthand “party surrogate in form, clean break in content.” As described above, the party surrogate aspect means our priority should be our program and organizing operations, rather than the secondary tactical question of ballot line. “Clean break in content” means that we will not take direction from the capitalist class through the structures of the Democratic Party. While the party establishment does not have direct control as in other countries, they are able to exert pressure in many ways, seen and unseen. We should use the Democratic Party ballot and primary infrastructure without submerging ourselves into its ecosystem once in office. Socialists in office can refuse to join Democratic Party caucuses, even at the cost of committee assignments. They do not have to fund the Democratic establishment, by paying party dues or otherwise.
Using the Democratic ballot line without limiting ourselves to being a faction of the Democrats is about both candidate actions and messaging. Running as a Democrat is a temporary tactical necessity rather than an identity to embrace. The campaigns members select should be clear that their priority is building DSA, not reforming or realigning the Democratic Party. The idea of the “cadre candidate,” or someone who has come up through DSA as an organizer, is often presented as how to find someone who will promote DSA first. A background organizing in DSA is excellent but not a silver bullet. A basic step chapters can take is asking potential candidates if they agree to the four criteria inspired by the proposed 1-2-3-4 plan:
If they do not get the chapter endorsement, they pledge not to run if the chapter endorses another candidate in that race
If they get the endorsement, they will downplay their identification as a Democrat as much as possible
If they get the chapter endorsement, they will endorse all other chapter-endorsed candidates at the same time
If elected, join the chapter Socialists in Office committee and vote as a bloc with the other socialist legislators
These are four common sense guidelines that chapters can use to start putting the “clean surrogate” approach into practice and identify if candidates are here to build DSA.
Building the Party
As the resolution says, “Our ability to take independent political action is essential to preserve above all other considerations.” Political independence is a fundamental value shared across the organization. Every time someone makes a recruitment ask, makes calls on a renewal phonebank, or gives a dues drive presentation at a chapter meeting, we are reinforcing the importance of political independence. We are funded by member dues because this means we are not bound to the whims of wealthy patrons or foundations. Nobody can buy influence in DSA; you have to persuade the members who both do the work making up our collective activity and participate in our internal democracy. DSA’s electoral program needs to be determined by our membership, or else we are no different than the hollow capitalist parties that only serve their donors. Our independence is a matter both of resolutions at convention and the collective choices we make in our organizing in the two years in between. We hope that Principles of Party Building may be a useful guide.
