Special Convention Issue, August 8th
Over the course of convention, MUG published a daily newspaper as a part of our goal of elevating the conversation and putting forward complete arguments. Comrades tirelessly printed through the night, making hundreds of copies which were put in the hands of delegates and which, we hoped, directly spoke to the issues we were debating. Over the next three weeks, alongside other articles reflecting on convention and the moment we are in, we will republish these Convention Special Issues for posterity’s sake.
Read the newspaper itself here
A red pigeon on the landing above union station as the Lakeshore Limited came into the station
Let Convention Reign
Amy W
Comrades, I’m honored to be here with all of you at our Convention, DSA’s highest ruling body. This weekend we’ll debate and decide the direction of DSA for the next two years, based on proposals from members around the country, and elect our next term of the National Political Committee (NPC) to carry it out. All members are entitled to make proposals to Convention, and are entitled to stand to be elected as delegates for Convention. Chapters and at-large members proportionally elect delegates to represent them.
Convention is sovereign–decisions made at Convention are binding on all of DSA, and the NPC and chapters alike are subject to its decisions. But there is one proposal to Convention this year that risks undermining that: CB02, “One Member, One Vote for National Leadership Elections.”
Split Mandate
DSA currently most resembles a parliamentary system, where a representative body is elected and appoints an executive body from among itself. The comparison is not exact - Convention doesn’t quite work like a parliament because it only sits for one weekend, and the NPC is charged with not only execution but steering between Conventions - but I argue it holds. Convention reigns supreme, and the NPC’s power is delegated from Convention.
Separate elections would more closely resemble the American system of government, where a powerful executive is elected separately, often with significant political differences between the representative body (which is really just the House) and the executive. As the philosophy of a powerful and more or less independent executive has gained ground through both Republican and Democratic administrations and the courts (which are appointed by the President), we’ve seen how this tends to empower the Presidency to the detriment of Congress.
Electing the NPC separately from Convention means that the NPC, which is a partially executive and partially legislative body, will have a split mandate with Convention. Proponents claim that CB02 would make DSA more democratic, which implies that Convention is not and further confuses the issue of where supreme power in the organization rests.
Some proponents have even argued that this is a good thing, that a 16 person (or 25, if CB01 passes) body directly elected by membership would inherently be more representative than a body of over 1000 delegates directly elected by membership in proportion to chapter size.
False Comparisons
Proponents of the 1m1v system cite its use in unions and the UK Labour Party. But they don’t articulate how our current democratic processes are dysfunctional or undemocratic, instead arguing from an axiom that leadership elections by delegates are inherently undemocratic. But the important context missing is that these organizations functioned significantly differently from DSA.
In UK Labour, delegate seats are reserved for labor unions, with only half of votes going to delegates appointed (not elected!) by "Constituency Labour Parties,” Labour’s local structures. In many unions, delegates are appointed from staff or from local officers, many of whom are themselves appointed by leadership. This functions to entrench existing leadership through patronage or sheer momentum.
In contrast, DSA members directly elect all of our delegates. There are no special privileges for members of the NPC or local chapter leaders.
Conclusion
In the book Democracy Is Power, the authors note that “direct elections in the Steelworkers or Machinists do not seem to stimulate, let alone guarantee, a democratic culture [...] Conversely, some unions that use the convention system–UE, OCAW, CUPW–are among the more democratic unions, not because of their election method but because of other reasons that have promoted a more democratic culture.” (pp. 206-207)
Direct leadership election is not something that is inherently more or less democratic than delegated elections, or a core principle. It is a tactic that has been successfully used in unions to oust entrenched leadership-bureaucracies, which function through methods that are not possible in DSA.
DSA’s democratic structures are built for a deeply democratic culture, one where all members are entitled to contribute to and stand for our highest decision-making body. We should not risk undermining that.
Let Convention reign. Vote no on CB02.
Defanging the Beast
Jean Allen & Juno C
Members of Reform and Revolution have been working alongside Marxist Unity Group to reconcile our two programs into R34-A01: A Fighting Socialist Program. The last part of the program’s preamble is what we call the minimum program, and it presented below:
The Minimum Program
The minimum program is about what it would take for the working class to rule. This framing gives a clear sense of our current conditions, which socialists oppose not out of the goodness of our hearts but from a collective desire for self-governance of the working class and the eventual rule of society by the working class majority. The demands are:
A Democratic Socialist Republic
A Worker’s Economy
An End To Empire
A Democratic Socialist Republic
Our current society divides us up into categories: race, immigration status, gender, etc. Based on which categories you find yourself in, it may be harder to seek medical care, get a job, or live a free life. This system gives the US empire a mechanism to oppress some of us more than others, and serves the purpose of dividing the working class against itself.
Legal distinctions based on these divisive categories are not necessary for a functioning society. Furthermore, we see these features of our government as baked in, not accidental, and stemming from interest of agrarian elites founders. For this reason, we call for a new government—a democratic socialist republic—where the same civil liberties apply to everyone irrespective of these legal categories. It will be based on the democratic control by and for workers through a mix of a unicameral legislature, and local councils and assemblies.
A Worker’s Economy
We know that this isn’t enough. Flawed as our government may be, it is ostensibly democratic. The same can not be said of the workplace, which is a dictatorship of capital with no pretense of democracy. A democratic government alone makes no sense if people are forced to spend ever-increasing amounts of time submitting to the tyranny of capital.
Major structural changes are also required in the economic realm if a worker’s government is to succeed: worker councils replacing executive boards; nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy (transportation, energy, internet, food, etc.); decommodification of housing and healthcare. We also call for reparations and the end of segregation, as well as a just transition away from fossil fuels.
An End To Empire
The logic of internal division also applies to the international scale. The United States stands at the top of a vast network of alliances, trade agreements, and military coercion designed to empower the US ruling class at the expense of the US and international working class. The years-long genocide in Palestine is just the latest example of how far the US empire is willing to go to protect its power, and we would be foolish to believe that this brutality is only reserved for people abroad. Thus, for the survival of the working class and the human race, it is imperative that we end the US’s part in the division of the international working class by ending our imperial ambitions and the role of the military and police as political forces in this country.
If socialists are interested in fighting against division anywhere, we must defeat the US empire which divides us everywhere. We can do this by opposing the current treaty regime up to and including NATO, and the replacing of America’s police and military with a new force accountable to working class democracy. This force would be tasked with self-defense, building out our infrastructure, and responding to natural crises. The program also calls for the end of foreign military bases, supports self-determination and right to return for indigenous peoples and all oppressed nations within the US, and ends both military aid for countries involved in apartheid and genocide and the use of sanctions as a tool for strongarming.
Conclusion
These things must be demanded together. The point of the minimum program is to preclude the possibility of compromising with the ruling class and measure our ability to bring about revolutionary change, which can only come about by uniting and empowering the working class as a class. In isolation, these demands lose their coherence and revolutionary character.
If our convention passes R34-A01, we would be able to take it to every oppressed community in the US, every workplace, and use the fight for these changes to unite the working class around DSA. Together, these changes would give us the beginning of a socialist society, where everyone can live meaningful, dignified lives, free to be themselves.
In support of Deliberative Federal Endorsements (CR05: A03)
Megan R & Mike B
Bourgeois electoralism has manifested such in the minds of citizens that merely casting a vote is both democratic and representative. This is apparent in the structures of many non-governmental organizations, such as the Democratic Party, who send out email lists with the tag line “your voice matters!”, while maintaining a bureaucracy of decision makers. There is no involvement, there is no discussion, there is no debate on the role and direction of the organization. Democracy is an active process, requiring engagement with members, discussion on how an issue affects our organization, the relationships internal and external to our organization that we build, and how we hold ourselves accountable to ourselves, which strengthens our programmatic discipline.
CR05- A03: Towards Deliberative Federal Endorsements treats revolutionary democracy as an active process. Rather than an unconnected, “mass email list” model of democracy (as suggested by GW’s proposed 1M1V resolution), this amendment provides a process of establishing social relationships with our candidates in the electoral arena. It opens up transparency with our organizational objectives (or Program, as proposed by R34-A01) and communicates expectations of behavior while in a highly visible position.
The specifics of the amendment:
Chapter leaders must participate in a Q&A with NEC SC and NPC members (not applicable for presidential candidates).
Candidates must participate in a Q&A with NEC SC and NPC members.
NEC recommendations for endorsements are decided via simple majority vote by NEC rank-and-file at a general meeting, observable for any member in good standing.
NPC holds at least one open member discussion forum regarding the candidate’s endorsement, observable for any member in good standing.
NPC deliberates and votes on endorsement synchronously, observable for any member in good standing.
As the National Electoral Commission (NEC) has developed into a more democratic body, this resolution continues to develop the principles of active participation by the membership to engage in the endorsement process. It shifts endorsement recommendations away from the NEC Steering Committee and into the membership itself, giving the (currently hundreds) of members an onus to actually attend the endorsement meetings and have a say in active deliberation. This is in stark contrast to the 1M1V resolution, which dissolves any sort of deliberation and active discussion that engages members in the endorsement process.
Points on Programmatic Unity
Puts National and locals in direct contact to coordinate potential campaigns
Shifts endorsement recommendations away from the NEC SC and to the membership itself, giving NEC members an onus to actually attend the endorsement meetings
The endorsement meetings are open to any DSA member in good standing, giving an open look to what the NEC is like
Second set of eyes that look at the candidate from a more objective perspective
All Together Now
Lavender C
Yes On DemCom!
Nick W
The strength of DSA is unity in diversity. It's easy to lose sight of this when you have different political tendencies fighting across the org for their priorities. However political debate, political struggle deciding the direction of the organization in a comradely good faith manner is healthy for the organization. Factions are good, and that has been a hard lesson to learn for the American left. For decades the American left were split into sects fighting a perpetual battle royale to be the one true vanguard of the working class with their “perfect politics.”This approach has done nothing to build power for working class liberation. A great strength of DSA is the fact that we reject this approach, opting instead for a mass model that allows anyone who is aligned and willing to participate.
Every faction and tendency you will find in the 2025 convention has their strengths and weaknesses, their weird hills to die on, their jerks, and their saints. And this is what makes DSA beautiful, no tendency is allowed to live in isolation if they wish to be relevant, and their politics have to engage with serious work and a serious movement. Unlike sects, you will never find a DSA caucus attempting to disprove the big bang theory as "undialectical.”
The challenges come in trying to make everyone in a large diverse organization happy, and the fact is that you can’t make everyone happy. However we are all DSA, and we can come together and find common ground to move the organization forward. This was what DSA’s Democracy Commission is: a collection of representatives from different tendencies coming together to bring a reform proposal to bring the organization closer together, standardizing practices and agreements to create Democratic baselines for the organization. This proposal consists of many planks, from expectations put on a chapter to uphold minimal standards of democracy to reforming the NPC. The proposal was written to improve DSA’s transparency, connection, and coherence. It focuses on the chapters which are our political homes and makes sure chapter meeting discussion is at the heart of our organization’s nationwide debates. The proposal explicitly protects DSA’s multitendency nature and the ability to disagree with each other and the decisions of the organization, intentionally setting us apart from the stifling party lines of the sects and structurally valuing what keeps DSA dynamic.
No organization should consist solely of compromise, but for a diverse range of people and groups with the common goal of bringing about a socialist future and all the different ways such a phrase can be interpreted, compromise sometimes becomes a necessity. Commissioners put forward their ideas on how to make DSA a better organization, we argued and debated to find the best consensus we could. Some issues we could not come to an agreement on. For what is in the proposal we found the common ground where we could, and where there was not easy common ground made amendments to find a way to meet in the middle. Commissioners moved towards each other where we were persuadable out of a desire to work together and build something for the entire organization.
Nobody is obligated to agree with the proposal the commission wrote, and the text belongs to convention. Members always have the right to move to consider pieces of a proposal separately for things that need to be debated. We wish that those who wish to divide the question had submitted amendments, but we are here now. We believe that the proposal as a package will improve DSA and bring members together across the organization. We hope that delegates will vote yes on CB01, whether as the single proposal or divided.
