#25: Talking Strategy with DSA Leaders

Speaker 0 00:00:01 Hi folks. Dick Flax here with episode number 25 talking strategy, making history. Remember, we've been conversing for several sessions now about the meanings of socialism in current scene, and today we have the privilege of talking with two leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America, dsa, David, and Christian. It's a fairly lengthy conversation, but I think we explore in depth some of the dilemmas of strategy, some of the ways forward that people in DSA are currently engaged in figuring out. So give it a listen. Speaker 1 00:00:47 And here we are with David and Christian, uh, from dsa. Thank you so much for making time, uh, and it's a pleasure to meet you Christian, and also to have David back on, as we were joking before. He's a, a friend of the podcast, uh, and someone we've looked to, to, uh, help us sort through contemporary socialist strategy, which is what we're here to talk about today. And I think it's, we should just get right into it. But we just wanted to start and maybe start with you Christian, if you could introduce yourselves to our listeners and, uh, a little bit of a bio, uh, in terms of how you got, uh, involved in socialist politics, uh, and DSA specifically, or politics, general ed, whatever the story of you, uh, is and how you got here to debate socialist strategy. Speaker 2 00:01:33 Awesome. Yes. Well, thank you so much for the invitation. Happy to be here. Hopefully by the end of the episode I'll be a friend of the podcast, but Excellent. Yes, Christian Hernandez. I am born and raised in Texas. Lived in North Texas my entire life and how I got into politics, that's, uh, a lovely little origin story that was really rooted in my background in immigrant rights organizing. Um, I'd been doing that I think probably a few years before just started to realize like, Hey, this needs to happen at a faster rate. It felt like putting a bandaid on a bullet hole and it just wasn't, wasn't going as well. Especially, I mean, in the realm of immigration. Anyone who, uh, has been, you know, fighting for the Dream act can tell you, it's just like a constant barrage of disappointment. And so I really was looking to sort of figure out how to scale and I just happened to get an invite to go to Vegas one day because they were looking for bilingual Spanish speakers. Speaker 2 00:02:32 And it was for a guy, uh, Bernie Sanders, y'all might know him, <laugh> I'm to go canvas and talk to people, particularly Latinos, um, in Las Vegas. And, you know, I was like, sure, that sounds great. I don't know this Bernie guy, but that sounds awesome. And I think just in the course of, of, you know, traversing a hundred degree weather <laugh> and talking to a bunch of people, just really seeing one, how Bernie's message resonated, but also for myself just understanding like, oh, this is, there's better, right? People are thinking beyond just sort of like the local. And so, you know, I just kind of stuck a, as a Bernie fan and eventually, uh, had somebody, you know, ask like, Hey, are you interested in leftist politics? And I'm like, I mean, I'm a big fan of Bernie. Is that like in the realm of what you're looking for? Speaker 2 00:03:18 And this person was actually one of the, uh, initial, uh, people who, who started the process of developing a DSA chapter in the North Texas area. Um, and so I joined and I joined in a, what I felt was a very old school way at the time. I like filled out a paper application and submitted a check. Um, and yeah, no, I know that's how we used to do things, which I like <laugh>. I'm, I'm very old school in that regard. And, uh, yeah, by, by fall of of 2016, I was officially a DSA member, uh, and very, very shortly after, became chair of my chapter for two years, did a lot of work around the Dakota Access Pipeline, uh, just because the, you know, the c e O is rooted in Dallas. Um, and then we had a huge paid sick time campaign and some police oversight work, some victories there. And then I was recruited to run for the, uh, national political committee, which is the political leadership of dsa. And this is now my second term <laugh> on the npc. And my last, so definitely a very reflective time for me having spent now almost seven years in, in D S A and seeing both my personal trajectory in the organization, but also just the, the broader trajectory of the organization in the, in the realm of the left and, and the broader political terrain. Speaker 1 00:04:35 Awesome. That's like 14 years, at least in socialist years. I think seven years <laugh> on a board, uh, for sure. Yeah, that's all really fascinating, really look forward to hearing your, your thoughts on the organization and how it's changed. Put it in little context. We used to deal with in a lot of cash, actually in my day <laugh>, it was like change and ones, uh, to get like for dues for the youth section and stuff. So I'm sure now it's all, you know, thought, thought, beamed, <laugh>. So David, who are you? Speaker 3 00:05:07 Well, I will first say I also, uh, remember bringing my $20 that I probably saved up with my allowance or whatever to, to bring it to the DSA national office to give it to the youth organizer in person. So I remember it was the old, old fashioned, I didn't even mail it, but I, so I'm David Doe. I am calling in from Brooklyn, New York, but I'm, uh, from the other borough over Manhattan. Uh, I've been in DSA for, I can't believe it's gonna be 20 years, although in a couple of months, I think, uh, just a couple. Cause I remember doing it in giving that story, it was probably in July or May or June. Your Speaker 1 00:05:43 DSA tenure could vote. Speaker 3 00:05:45 I know. <laugh>, it's really weird. Oh, man's gonna be able to drink soon. Um, <laugh>. That's right. So I come from a socialist family. My dad's from Chile. He was part of, uh, student supporting, uh, Salvador Andes government who was exile here. My mom was a solidarity activist, both were active in the trade union movement. Um, very d s a friendly and aligned and did some work with Dsoc, one of the predecessor organizations we may talk about, but they were not members. Uh, I, but I became a socialist in high school, largely under their influence and decided to join DSA in college where I became active in the Youth wing, which is now called the Young Democratic Socialist of America. Um, or I became friendly with DECA later when I was a staffer. And I've done, uh, many things in dsa. I've probably, I've joked, I've almost held like every position, at least I've been in every level possible from Y D S A college chapter, dull chapter. Speaker 3 00:06:40 Not in every role, but in every level to npc. And I served a couple of terms on the npc and then I got to know Christian when I was hired again by DSA around the launch of the Bernie campaign as their its deputy director, um, to based outta Washington dc which is to help do some run of the youth programming and do some electoral work. And then I largely was just focused on electoral work after the explosion of DSA that happened in 2016 to 20, especially in 2017 after Trump was inaugurated, which was a totally different organization, <laugh>. Well, and so my job, my title never changed, but my job descriptions changed monthly. Um, I felt, and I, uh, have done, I left the staff in 2017, uh, have done a couple, but I stayed very active. And today I sit as the chair of the Democratic Social America Fund, which is the C3 sister organization that has two staffers and is doing a lot of interesting work edu an educational lead to amplify what DSA is doing, and also to advance our own independent work around, uh, but very much in the spirit of the democratic socialist agenda around policy and history. Speaker 3 00:07:52 And so that's what I'm doing right now most in my, in my dsa. Speaker 1 00:07:57 And, uh, what, what do both of you do for a living at this point, I assume other than dsa <laugh>, Speaker 2 00:08:04 Um, what little time but D s A leaves me for my day job, I guess I should say. Uh, I work at a construction company. I'm a production administrator, which is just a fancy way of saying I do a lot of paperwork and do a lot of translation. But yeah, I've been doing that for 11 years now, so longer than I've been in D S A. And then I also, you know, do sit on the steering committee of the npc, uh, which is currently stipend. Uh, cool. So, wow, that helps <laugh>, Speaker 1 00:08:34 This is, so much of this conversation is gonna be me going, whoa, like science, like I stepped into a time warp alternate reality. Yeah, my aunt actually did exactly that same job. I know how, like how important it's for getting anything built. Um, and David, what else? Do you, I know you, you have another political job or something? Speaker 3 00:08:53 I have done some, I still do some political consulting, uh, sometimes with Draka, sometimes do not <laugh>. Uh, but my, my real true day job is I work for the New York City Campaign Finance Board, which is the public funding, uh, administration and voter education of the city of New York. And there I'm also a delegate with a small public sector union called organization Staff Analyst, which is just independent New York only. And so a lot of my labor work on the side is through my union there too. And so it's a great position where I do, where I'm, you know, doing definitely work that's advancing democracy. And I think that, um, it fits, fits well with what I, I'm glad to do in my daytime. And then at night, <laugh> doing this kinda stuff. Speaker 1 00:09:38 Our listeners in Scandinavia will find your biography, like especially familiar, even if it's very, you know, unique or, uh, exotic to most American listeners that you like work, uh, that you're a second generation socialist, you know, spent from youth to adulthood in the organization and then now works for like the social democratic, you know, education bureaucracy of the city of New York that publicly finances elections. It's like, what? Speaker 3 00:10:05 Why wouldn't he do that? <laugh>? Um, Speaker 1 00:10:06 Yeah, meanwhile in Texas <laugh> it's like, um, and I hope I really, you know, that's, I'm not, I'm teasing, but it's, um, really looking forward to, to hearing those two different perspectives, which is sort of like different polls of, of American politics are like places where American politics is at both fights, very important. Saving what we've won in places like New York, expanding it, and then woo, saving, I don't know, civilization, the, the, the 21st century, something like that in Texas. Anyway, I'm, I'm rambling. Do you have anything, uh, you wanna say before we jump into the questions? Speaker 0 00:10:42 Well, I'm kind of moved to mention my, um, biography relating to dsa. And that is that I first met Michael Harrington. I saw him when I was a student at Brooklyn College in the fifties. He's one of the, he's probably the only Marxist in the whole fifties that got to speak at New York City Colleges. And, um, I was, at that time my parents were members of the Communist Party, so I was stunned by this Marxist who hated the Soviet Union, couldn't quite put it together, but then in port he was there, port Huron as I was. And we met there and became an enemy of the new left or of sds. Uh, but then like 10 years later my phone rang, it was Michael saying he wanted to reach out to me as one of the veterans of SDS to help him get started with Dsoc. Speaker 0 00:11:40 Uh, he, he had, you know, he was very much a different of a different frame of mind than he was in the early sixties. And um, we kind of embraced, uh, intellectually, politically, he spoke to several of my classes over the years here and we had long talks, uh, when he would visit out here in Santa Barbara. And so I joined Des Oc been been there for almost from the beginning. And I loved DSA in the old days cuz it didn't ask me to do a damn thing at all. I could just pay my dues and as I used to say, claim I could be a socialist at least Tuesday, Thursdays and Saturdays every week. I was a socialist alternating with other identities, <laugh> and it didn't make any demands of me. So I've been that kind of member ever since, but I'm still a member. I just thought I'd mentioned that because that helps frame some of where we're coming from maybe. Speaker 1 00:12:37 Yeah, it's also, I think a really good segue into the first question or like thing we'd love you to ruminate on, which is, you know, Dick mentioned Michael Harrington, who's a, been a, was a very influential figure for my thinking, I think for Dick's thinking as well. But, and it would be a terrible disservice to him and to everyone to try to make his work into some kind of dogma or like system or whatever, you know, so I don't wanna do that. Um, at the same time there were like some conclusions that I think he came to towards the end of his life because DSA is, as he said, like a remnant of a remnant that it was like these people, it was founded by people who had failed at so many different things that there were like, all these, I think really useful lessons that were sort of floating around. Speaker 1 00:13:27 And two of them in particular seem to have been, and um, and this is where I could be totally wrong and my perspective just, you know, incorrect. But it seems from reading Jacobin following stuff on the internets and so forth, that there's like a few Harrington conclusions you could say that have been kind of dropped or decentered or are yeah, kind of, uh, marginalized within DSA that are is surprising. And one of the first is like that Harrington did a lot of work, finding the socialism in American liberalism in like the better parts of American liberalism and kind of being agnostic about these terms, socialism, uh, social democracy, like good, robust, like the new Deal, right? I mean, just, and not that it, the distinctions meant nothing. And not that he couldn't distinguish socialism from liberalism at all, that's a caricature, but just that liberals might come to the same conclusions, especially in the United States, come to some good conclusions that are like worth supporting and that that's given way a little bit to more like, we have to find the socialist argument here that's different than the liberal or even the New deal or the social democratic, like, I hear people like people social democracy being something that folks distinguishing themselves from as opposed to owning is a new thing for me. Speaker 1 00:14:52 And then the second thing is, is is you know, realignment and sort of thinking, thinking of Ds a's role, this is a big one, uh, I guess probably right, but thinking of Ds a's role either as like the replacement in a sense or the germ of a replacement for the Democratic party or thinking of it as part of a coalition that would influence the Democratic party and move it, et cetera. And yeah, that seems up for grabs <laugh>, um, in a sense or something. So talk, is that off base, is that frame make any sense? Um, is it, is it good that those things have been thrown overboard? Is it bad? What do you think? Speaker 2 00:15:29 Yeah, I mean, a lot, a lot of things to dig into <laugh> in both of those questions. Well, you know, I mean I think the sort of, the first thing that occurs to me is the fact that in this moment there is so little democracy in people's lives. And for me that's sort of like the, the approach that I always try to come at, uh, because I think it's something that like is generally always seen as a positive thing. Um, and particularly in Texas where, you know, saying just socialism outright is, is a very like, loaded term. And I definitely don't wanna approach, you know, organizing conversations or really just sort of everyday interactions from just like a place of just like, you know, scaring people shitless, even though I make no apologies nor, um, you know, hide the fact that I am a socialist in Texas. Speaker 2 00:16:15 But I think really, really coming in, in a manner that is very clear that democracy is like the end goal. And I think for me, without democracy there's no socialism. So I think it's an important place to start, but also how little it's actually seen or recognized. I think, you know, in d s A the political organization, there's always constant conversations about, well, this is undemocratic, this is not democratic. And it's, and it's sort of become somewhat of a, like a throwaway term to mean things. I don't like <laugh>, but I think the reality is when, when I'm talking to people outside of d s a, like, they're just surprised by how much democracy there actually is. So this is something that's like being new and being felt an experience for the first time for a lot of people in ways that are like challenging in ways that require a lot of struggle, <laugh> through it and, and understanding that, hey, like you lose a vote, that means you can't just take your ball and go home. Speaker 2 00:17:11 Like we, we keep going. And so, I mean, I think at this point too, there are very clear and coordinated and intentional attacks on, on liberal democracy, um, not only all over the country, but especially here in Texas where we can't just sort of throw away these concepts or these material issues just because it's not enough, just because it's not our vision for what a democratic society looks like and really have to protect what little democracy we, we do have an experience on, on a regular basis. So I think that to me has sort of been like the approach particularly because I, I think one of the biggest things that, you know, put me off of the Democratic party put a lot of people that I've talked to in, in, in my home state, um, you know, sort of all across the board, mostly people who don't consider themselves political, um, is this condescension, right? Speaker 2 00:18:01 <laugh> this idea that like, I know better than you. And, um, because I think that that's largely felt by people when, when, you know, they're interacting with their bosses, when they're interacting with folks who have power over them, there's just this like constant lack of agency in the decisions that affect their lives. And so I think for me, always making sure too that when I'm talking about D s A or talking about socialism and the vision that we have, it's always rooted from a place of like, I don't know, better <laugh>, this is something we need to figure out, but I think that we can come to the agreement that this shit sucks how it is here, right? So really always trying to come in from that place of like, what do we agree on and what can we agree that we deserve more? And that's sometimes even the hardest part, <laugh>, is just getting people to agree that they deserve more. Speaker 2 00:18:52 Um, it's a difficult concept for a lot of people. And I think just briefly to touch on the second point around sort of our orientation, I think there's a big difference between where D S A is and where DSA wants to be. I think a lot of the discourse is really like rooted in where we want to be and not necessarily where we are. And while I, I tend not to get too involved in the discourse just because it's a lot of work. <laugh> being on the life too short <laugh>. Yeah, well, and yes, and life is too short. I don't necessarily see it as a way of moving people in a genuine manner. It's not necessarily conducive to that. But I do think that for me, I always have to approach it from like a place of humility and honesty of like where we are as an organization. Speaker 2 00:19:37 And I think at, at this point, uh, no matter how frustrating it can be, and no matter how much hope I have that we can, um, build, be and build the alternative political infrastructure that's necessary to get all the things that we want, um, I think at this point in time, you know, we still have some ways to go and we still have a lot of questions and a lot of experimentation to do, which is why, you know, for better or worse, um, it's really great to to read about. I think as you mentioned, you know, there's a lot, a lot of failures in the lessons that come from it, but really like the, the beauty of failure is also that you tried something. And that experimentation I think is also really important to not forget that like people have been trying this for a long time. This is not a new thing that people are trying to do. People have been trying to make the world a better place for, for, for a long time and they will a long time after we're gone. And so really also trying to approach it from like, what can we learn from this? Um, and how can we approach this in a different way? Speaker 1 00:20:35 Excellent. Yeah. Wow. A lot. That was great, David. Speaker 3 00:20:38 Yeah, so to piggyback what Christian was saying, what I would begin with is the observation that I and others have had and have coined, hauled the dirty stay. And so, and then I'll work to the Harrington and Liberalism part two. But I think this is helpful to understand what I think what Christian is getting at, which I think is really important, which if I put out in my old econ 1 0 1 hat is like the normative and positive analysis, like the analysis, which I think it's lost in dsa, which is the fancy way of saying that. Like people don't distinguish between like what we want things to be and what things are and they, they get, sometimes you're just trying to describe how things are and they get like, oh, that's what how you want things to be so dirty Stay. That's a problem. Yeah. So Dirty stay. Speaker 3 00:21:21 Yeah, it is. And so dirty stay is very much, uh, positive analysis. It's just like how I view how I and others view and, and our, and our caucus social majority is overall kind of view situation, which is, so it's a play on the term dirty brick, which is DSA is like official STA strategy that we're gonna eventually break from the Democrats and create our own party. And it's gonna, and it's called Dirty because it's not necessarily gonna, there's no clean organization. It's like you're gonna create these org frameworks that, and institutions that eventually can have strength to create its own party. And that kind of, an example of that in some some ways is like the Labor Party in England breaking off from the liberal party in some, it's not a perfect analogy by any stretch of the imagination, but um, I'm sorry, I I I don't mean to editorial it's fine, I'm just, I'm I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it's like for, if people are looking for like what's a historical, you're describing the position position, I get it. Speaker 3 00:22:13 Yeah. So the dirtiest thing is what we kind of have in a notice, which is that DSA doesn't do anymore, which I've written about extensively iss like DSA doesn't engage in Democratic party inter work intro work. So by that I mean specifically DSA doesn't promote people writing for county committee. DSA doesn't take stances on who's writing for the D NNC chair, which it did as recently as Keith Ellison in 2017. Like, DSA doesn't, it doesn't say don't do that to, like, doesn't say the individual members can't do that. It doesn't say people who do S A I U doing that is stupid. It just doesn't do it. It abstains from that, but it doesn't, so it doesn't do any intraparty work, but it also doesn't really, in my opinion, make key steps that would make the dirty break a reality because I don't think what I, I'll speak, just use the eye voice. Speaker 3 00:23:05 I don't actually think the dirty break is where the majority of electoral activists to use one constituency in DSA are really at. I think that, so whenever there are pushes to do things, so a concrete example would be at the 2021 convent is one, the example I give the 2020 convention, there's a vote to like, let's find an alternative to van. So Van is the, is the canvassing software that the Democratic National Committee you, uh, works on to that, that that candidates across the country use, including DSA members who are running in the Democratic Party primary. So like, let's find an alternative and people voted and this was not like, what's here's $5 million. It was just like, let's look at an alternative. Um, and people voted against that because it was just like, nope. I think the majority of delegates didn't think it was we were gonna realistically do that and that, and it was viewed as a proxy for like how much you wanna do dirty brick or not because it wasn't gonna create, the program itself would've cost millions of dollars. Speaker 3 00:24:02 So it's like it becomes a symbolic vote and it gets voted down and there's several instances that'll come up. So you have this situation where it's neither Harrington nor practice <laugh> dirty break. And by that I mean specific how I and Ira and I have had disagreements about how to define realignment, which I hope will come out here. But I broadly how I view realignment is like an effort to make the Democratic party into a small s small d social democratic party. And that is through like building a grass top coalition, which could be labor through the, through the, the political organizing I was just describing such as like that our revolution I felt took on for several years of like trying to organize so late in social Democrats that are called berniecrats <laugh> into like winning office within the party, then running candidates, um, and trying to taking on institutions at multiple levels. Speaker 3 00:24:52 Cause what I always note is there's no such thing as a Democratic party. It's really a brand and has different institutions, uh, forgetting in the state and city party is just like the dnc, the Governor's Association, the ds, the senatorial C these are all legally independent. So in the end, what I, and I'd be curious if Christian agree me or not, like I think she was saying this, but I may have misheard it. Is that, so realignment then I think becomes like, I'll, I can't think of the fancy word, but it becomes like a, a filler word or a symbolic word just for things that people don't like until say that people don't, in my opinion, actually use the term correctly because I don't think anyone besides the North Star caucus is really advocating for that strategy. So people say, oh, social majority believes in realignment, even though we don't actually argue with that. Speaker 3 00:25:37 We just don't think that like Dirty break is like that. We don't think that there's a majority support genuinely for Dirty Break, at least in people's interests. But we don't mind what we call the party surrogate, which is like Bill, which could be like the Working Families Party could be an example of that, which is like you're building an institution that can train candidates, can do canvases, that can like serve the role of like up that a party would, even if it's not officially working Families party, both a party and not a party depending on the state, but ds it would be like the surrogate party there. So we're very empathetic to that. And I think that there's, and how much does that end? So what I always think about then when I push back on people, and it's like one of my pieces that I would encourage people to look at that I wrote in Platypus, whatever you think of them, where I really look at like what changed about D SSA's electoral strategy and what didn't change and how much is perception, how much is reality? Speaker 3 00:26:28 And so I said really by 15 to 20 years ago when I joined dsa, DSA might have said it believing realignment if it wasn't doing anything practically because of its capacity and just where people are to advance that. So like, so the idea that people say that we've changed DSA is like, well you really haven't. I mean, well you're, it's not really doing anything that dramatically in practice different. And that the other thing I would say too is that where I think the, where it's always, I joke if there's like the horseshoe theory between me and the ultra left, it's like me and the Ultra left are like, well, DSA still runs Democrats. It's like if you look at the vast majority of candidates that DSA is running, they're Democrats, they're people who are like then endorsing other Democrats who aren't socialists. And as those numbers increase this, it actually, I think the ultra left is correct and but I say in the normative and positive way, for me the Normand analysis this is okay is like, and I don't mind it, is that it becomes much harder to actually be independent. So I am using the I voice again, I'm much more sympathetic to I think what what is called the junior partner strategy, which is more associated with Justice Democrats. I don't think the social majority position at all. So I really am just using my position where it's like, did d groups, groups like dsa, justice Democrats at this moment are the smaller part of the Democratic party sphere and can push the agenda through that way? And can I ask Speaker 1 00:27:47 Who, who labeled it the Speaker 3 00:27:49 Junior partner strategy? I think Wale Shahid is the one who, but I, I wouldn't, I don't know, I wouldn't speak on, oh he's, so he's the communications director of Justice Democrats, so it's worth looking into there. So what I end on is like the B P R A is like a quasi green New Deal type legislation that DSA was working incredibly hard on New York that got put in the bill, the recent New York State budget less than a year ago when the bill failed, people were saying, oh, how does it feel to, to be with the junior partner strategy now? Like, oh, maybe D SSA's political strategies wrong, all those people who are like criticizing us within dsa, like very quiet or celebratory. And it was kind of the B P R A passing as part of the budget vindicated a lot of what Christian and I, and I think ultimately people like Harrington would've also agreed to on some level, which is like, even if DSA didn't north catchy whole full the governor, we understood that our electeds had to, and having her being governor was key versus Zeldin who was a Trump <laugh>, like a Trump person who would've vetoed any budget that running a primary against a big opponent, even though the person, the DSA person lost the opponent of this legislation, let it go. Speaker 3 00:29:05 You know, it's the classic thing of like, sometimes you lose, but you win, uh, you may lose the election, but you win the legislation and that the, the lobbying and social pressure work all came together to get something, even if it wasn't a standalone bill. And it's like, so I think a big distinction, and Christian will probably know the right terms, but it's like we social majority would not, don't think, doesn't think it's a problem if our electeds endorse Cay holster. We're not saying we don't think DSA should endorse Cay Hols, who's the governor, but we, where other people would say no, they shouldn't endorse them. In fact, they should be critical. And I, and I just don't think that's the political reality that we can pass. We can't pass our program if she's not governor. I mean this is objectively true, but we also like, and so I think that's the co when the contradictions DSA has to figure out that you're getting at where like people that there is a tension there that would not have existed the old DSA where people are like fighting that out. But it, and it's interested to see, and I think these la this legislation too alone is like, will change the dynamics of that debate I think at the convention. Speaker 2 00:30:06 Yeah, I mean I, I think to David's point, I think one of the, the main things that really, uh, I mean a lot of the reason that folks that, uh, both of David and I are in socialist majority, and a lot of the reason I think that we're we're bound there is because there is this recognition of like what's possible and what we want to achieve and like where that fits on the timeline. So while it's great that we're getting people elected that we're, we're looking at at ways to expand and build the bench in certain parts, whether that's New York, whether that's Chicago, whether that's, you know, in Massachusetts, the reality is we're just now starting to hit the tip of the iceberg when it comes to socialist governance and like what that actually means. Um, and I think that's, that's sort of a lot of what, uh, some of these tensions and contradictions entail is that like, yeah, you can, you can, um, sit here and say, I'm gonna have the most perfect positions as this like one city council person, uh, on council. Speaker 2 00:31:06 But the reality is it takes five people to put something on the agenda here locally in Dallas, if you're completely rigid, unable to actually make any inroads with anybody else on council who more than likely is not a socialist, well then you're fucked. It doesn't matter if you're a socialist, you in practice cannot be because you can't get anything done. And so I think that as we're navigating like how we actually get things done, how we actually win our demands, um, I think we're gonna start contending with the reality of what level of power it takes to actually achieve the things that we wanna do. And I think, you know, further down the line like that, that would be the ideal. But how do we get there? Which Speaker 3 00:31:46 Would be the ideal down the line. Speaker 2 00:31:48 So I think, I mean, down the line, we'd have the, we'd have the power to hold, say our electeds to align because we'd have, we'd have the ability to do that, whether it's through a broad base that is able to like sort of move the masses into this position, but also that we have both the infrastructure, the resources and the capacity to get, you know, folks elected at the federal level, for instance. I think that's a little astounding to me how much, you know, the federal level discourse is constantly, you know, on Twitter given that so few of our electeds are actually, uh, at the federal level. And that largely these are not wins that we ever did by ourselves. Like we were part of a coalition to get these folks elected. And while it's great that they're DSA members, they also, you know, are um, are accountable to, to other groups and, and recognize that other groups had a hand in their victory. Speaker 2 00:32:42 Um, and so I think in the interim, uh, it's, it's really important that we like contend with sort of the mushy middle. Like what's, what do we, how do we get to that step? And I think some arguments on the negative end come like kind of come back to like, well it didn't work, so this is actually a dead end or, uh, to the like, oh, well it's not really worth doing this because it's gonna take forever. And I think sometimes too many of the political arguments or debates around strategy are really rooted in this impatience that's like obviously fueled by the fact that we're, we're at the intersection of so many crises and it's, it the urgency that's constantly being felt and like fueled also by the media of just like every, every day you see something new and it's, I understand, I, uh, completely understand why people get frustrated that we're not where we need to be, but it doesn't make it any more of a reality by speaking from in that place. We have to stay rooted in where we are now and the conditions that we have to contend with. Speaker 3 00:33:45 I'm just gonna add one minute thing cuz I realize what she said was really important about the federal people getting elected and I didn't address that. And the first thing about your question about liberals, and I think there's one thing that we all know intellectually but we don't sometimes forget to mention in the difference between Harrington and now is that people identify, and I, in this case, this hit me a few months ago when I was talking to a younger comant where I was giving the line that I, I felt like I grew up with in dsa, which is like, you know, we want to reach out to these millions of liberals. And he, she responded, it's this woman, so I don't, I'm overtired she responded, what? But there's millions of socialists. And I was like, what are you talking about? And then I realized from her perspective, if you look at polling that's true. Speaker 3 00:34:25 It's like there are millions of people in the United States who broadly identify with social whether in DSA or not. So, and it's a, it was like a, it was like one of those moments like oh yeah, like when I was younger there weren't millions of people who identified as social. So she's, and I realized that those are probably, we were talking about the same people <laugh> in my opinion, it was like the same kind of like people who would broadly be identified to a program, but for her it's like those are socialists now, even if they think public parks are socialism. And for me those are liberals cuz they think public parks are socialism. Speaker 1 00:34:52 But aren't there still a lot more people who, you know, support public parks but are not, don't call themselves socialists? I I think Speaker 3 00:35:00 I'm, I'm not saying that's not true, but I'm saying, but I think it's an interesting point that you could ha I don't think she, I think she's correct. She has her truth, her truth and her truth is different than the truth from that. At least I'm not for Christian, but the three gentlemen on this call when we were politicized were true. Well Speaker 1 00:35:16 Well be careful. Be careful cuz when Dick was politicized, like revolution looked like it was in the air. I mean this this, what's nice about this. Yeah, but Speaker 3 00:35:24 I think if you did a I I'm sure Gallup polls would not show that. So I still think that we should reach out to the liberal left groups. I personally think that's a key part. I think Ds, that's where I want Ds to be. I think broadly social majority and the politics c and I push are more coalition popular front, you know, in its form that would be today. And I think, but I do think that's a genuine things that would've been uncontroversial when I first joined are are now in debate. And I don't think we're, I think that's the, the fact here, but I also just wanna acknowledge that interesting conversation I had with a younger comrade because it's all, it's not just that people are sectarian, I think their view of how the world works is very different for very real reasons that I think as we get older, we forget things Speaker 1 00:36:06 Have changed. Things have changed, yeah. Yeah. So very good corrective, always <laugh> that we're, yeah, we don't know everything. Uh, Dick, Speaker 0 00:36:14 Yeah, there's a, a number of thoughts r buzzing through my head because of the great stuff that's being said. One thing I wanted to share is my feeling, uh, that the suc biggest success of DSA in fact has been to identify and, and run and support people who call themselves socialists and been successful in the poli in the electoral politics sphere. That's had a big impact as Bernie Sanders started. That, uh, the, the amount of popular support that people can get with that label, uh, in spite of that label or because of that label, both, um, are remarkable. Uh, and uh, that in itself, uh, signifies a shift, especially I think among young people and, uh, various parts of the, of the population that are most precarious, most depressed, uh, who participate in the voting process. And, uh, I, I don't, I think that to think that that's not working or that those people who are elected are supposed to follow a line, uh, neither of those to me seem like the right way to look at this. Speaker 0 00:37:31 And I like what, uh, Christian was saying about impractical world of governing and participating in governing. There's gotta be alliances, there's gotta be coalitions, there's gotta be common ground found with people who don't necessarily share the label. So sharing the label, so the labeling has been making me uncomfortable for decades. My experience to be very simple about it, is that ideology doesn't predict what's in people's hearts or what they're likely to do in their action, number one. Number two, most Americans don't know what the words liberal or socialists mean. Majority of Americans and surveys call themselves conservative. Uh, but I think those who've studied that they, what they people mean by conservative is the family. They wanna, they wanna have families, they believe in family life or something like that. That's their, one of their values, not about who owns the means of production or, or other measures. Speaker 0 00:38:36 And it's remarkable how contradictory most people are in their attitudes toward this versus that. And how many different ideologies float around in people's heads. Uh, and that's to me a starting point of thinking, what, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to convert people to be calling themselves socialist or we trying to get movements for full democracy that require going past capitalism, going toward collective forms of, of ownership and of, and of, of decision making throughout the society? Uh, it's, it's not bad if people who are socialists say, look, we, we have socialism already. We have parks, public parks. We don't charge people money on a Sunday to walk through beautiful spaces, valuable land. We have libraries, we have public education on and on. These are things that people already value because they're common good, they're common part of the common good. Uh, I think that's happening in the area of housing now. Speaker 0 00:39:41 The, they're so obvious the capitalist forms cannot, commodity treatment of housing is commodity, can't give people the, the opportunity to have a decent home. It's reached that point of, I think, glaring obviousness in many parts of the country. So people are talking about social housing and social housing is a socialist term. It means housing built for people's needs, not not for profit. Bills in our legislature now introduced this year that I would've not predicted last year to support social housing. And not only in legislature here in our communities too, people are discussing this, that to me is more exciting than whether people call themselves socialists. But Speaker 1 00:40:27 Don't you think the uptick in people calling themselves socialist and the uptick in people having those conversations are related? Speaker 0 00:40:33 That's right. And, and that, and if people want to, Speaker 1 00:40:36 I, I'm more on the yes, we have to have a socialist organization, a conversation. Speaker 0 00:40:40 I'm, I'm not against, I'm not, I'm not just to clue Speaker 1 00:40:43 Our guests in, I'm just clue our guests in. Yeah, no, Speaker 0 00:40:45 I'm, I'm I'm not. Yeah, no, I mean, I am not against having socialist organization. The question is what is it for? We're not gonna answer that today, but I'm really trying to learn what DSA people are thinking, uh, are thinking about part, partly in strategy and partly social. To me talking about socialism is a job of education and enabling people to see beyond what they, what they see in their ordinary lives to be possible for a society to have. And, um, I'm, I'm really in, you know, I hope that's the discussion inclu is there in dsa. Maybe I'll ask that when we push that as a question. Two questions related to what I just said. One, how much discussion is there in DSA about the, the nature of what, what a socialist society means, what it would look like? And secondly, when we say we want a party of our own or a party that, um, what are we talking about? What kind of a what would that look like? I like to, I've been saying on the podcast, we ought to fight for the Democratic party to be a people's party. Speaker 2 00:42:01 Yeah. I mean I have, I have a few thoughts. Uh, a lot of it I think is also something I learned pretty early on in my tenure as chair of my chapter back when we were still printing out lists, texting people manually, didn't have the fancy spokes that we do now. Yeah. That those were the trenches, I guess. But, um, one thing that was really fascinating to me, particularly when, um, you know, we were doing the DSA for Bernie independent expenditure campaign and like we're looking at like, oh, this will be easy. We have a list of 500 people who have at some point in the last few years joined D s A, like a lot of people, even if they're like, you know, however hardcore they are now, like, supported Bernie, this will be like piece of cake. Like, we're gonna just get high response rates, it'll be great. Speaker 2 00:42:50 And <laugh>, we had a number of people who texted me back who were like, I'm supporting Trump. Had a number of people who texted me back saying, actually Mayor Pete sounds really great. There was, it was just like, and people, people like didn't believe me. I literally had to like take a screenshot from my phone to be like, no, this has actually happened. Um, because people, like, there's a, a huge fluidity of identity and I think a all of us could probably, uh, attest to having one person in our lives who maybe was like a hardcore Bernie in, you know, 2016 and then now is like a, you know, uh, evangelical Christian, like, uh, just, you know, like Speaker 0 00:43:29 Conspiracist type. Yeah, sure. Speaker 2 00:43:32 I mean, yeah, I think, you know, uh, the right traffic's in fear and at a place where conspiracy is, is a natural consequence of that. And so I think, I think one, obviously yes, like the definitions, the shared definitions of what these words mean are sort of constantly being defined. They're constantly also defined by our conditions and like what's actually possible because what none of us here I would imagine would've anticipated a pandemic that we had to contend with that that's like, was not on anyone's bingo card. And I think that like changed a lot of things. It changed a lot of the ways that we organize, it changed a lot of what we felt like was possible in, in those moments. And so I do feel like there is quite a bit of discussion about like what we wanna see or what we wanna be as an organization, but I think less discussion of how we get there, less discussion of like what our responsibility is for our size. Speaker 2 00:44:25 I think that's one thing I always try to frame is like, yeah, it's great being a huge organization. It's a huge flex. It's a, you know, awesome thing to say, but it's also responsibility because one of the biggest problems that we're facing at this moment in time is disorganization. That's one thing that the right is doing really, really well. They're so organized in what they have to do because destruction I think is, is easier than than creation, than building things. And we have, you know, a, a higher steeper hill to climb, a bigger, bigger mountain to move. But I think really for me, the main thing is knowing that if disorganization is the biggest problem that we face to getting the demands that we want, then we need organization in order to do things that we want. And we need an organization that has a mass character because the demands that we're fighting for are bold. They're like often not not experienced by people and they require this like massive imagination. So I think it's also a vehicle of, of possibility of what's out there. Yeah, Speaker 3 00:45:27 I, I remember somebody named DCA <laugh> when I was a youth organizer. Oof that guy. I know. Uh, I wonder what he's up to. <laugh>, uh, saying something dick that always stuck with me and that I still believed to this day, which is like the role of DSA is not to create socialism per se, but it's to create more socialists. And that I do feel that that is kind of law sometimes because we get so sometimes defensive or visionary, which are both good things and bad things at different times. But that there is actually, and I think it's my friend SW Spoon, if you asked her, she's not like the most ideolog, she's ideological person, but she's not like the most like sectarian person. But she even, she likes dsa. She's like, you need good organizers to do these social movement work even if she's more spontaneous. Speaker 3 00:46:09 And I think, so if you look at those different kind of takes, I think that that's why I stuck with DSA was that, you know, I think it's been a really good place to get a politic education to get a vision. And I noticed that more and more with like as DSA has gotten bigger, I agree with probably even harder on dsa maybe cuz I'm more emotional. It's been a longer time, but I won't think Christian is about the responsibility. I think there's been some serious questionable moments about ab advocation and responsibility for an organization of its size. But that said, like you have these moments where you see these chapters really creating good organizers who are learning how to connect the dots and be part, part of coalitions and also pushing and principles. And I think there's a value in socialists because socialists will be a li that much more not willing to compromise and can be the left flank for other pro sometimes ideally it was like you get some more martyr legislation because there's a left flank. Speaker 3 00:47:03 And I will emphasize what Dick, you're reminded me that I haven't self-promoted enough yet. I mean the DSA fund has been doing this How We Win series, which is a, a series that we're gonna have a conference, uh, in June, uh, with dozens of elected officials on their staff were socialists in DC to talk about and share public policy that they've done and that we, and so we've done three events where we had That's awesome. Yeah, I'm really excited. <laugh>, we've had chapter leaders, a community or local group and an elected official usually, and usually more than the, usually like four or five of those type of people. This, can Speaker 1 00:47:37 You say the dates on that just in case this actually comes out before it, Speaker 3 00:47:40 Uh, June 16th, the 17th. Um, so we've had three where people share both their successes and failures in implementing policy around like workers' rights, housing and just building in general legislative caucuses in, in throughout the country. And I think that's like, that has been a fascinating take where you see like, what is the role of socialists there? Sometimes it's to push the edge, sometimes it's to actually be the, the the, the coalition that the the, that to start a new coalition. It just varies. And so I don't think, but I think that what we would all agree here is that it doesn't, it all isn't only just dsa and that I don't view DSA as like the only organization that matters. I don't think like that it's DSAs allies are just the other socialist organizations. But I still have never been, I still remained like totally convinced that there's a role for an organized socialist organization. And I don't necessarily agree with you Dick, that it's like, you know, and I, I find personally I've become less and less interested in like what the inner workings of the democratic department I think is a big difference between like Thea and myself. But I still think that there is this very important role for DSA and that's why DSA is still worth fighting for, even if it drives me crazy <laugh> and I can't imagine how, and I do a lot less in Christian <laugh>, so I can only imagine. Speaker 1 00:48:54 I wanna make sure that you have a chance to explain to the listeners the caucus system a little bit because that's something that wasn't a thing when I was involved. I mean, uh, uh, ideological caucus, like factional caucuses, we had identity based caucuses or interest group. But actually I want you to address something else before you do that. Okay. This question keeps coming up and it's a good one of what is d s A four? Like what is it supposed to do in a different context? You have a political party or a union as the sort of purveyors, the, the agents of building socialism or moving the socialist movement or housing a socialist movement. And here in the United States, you know, we're not organized, are are trade unions aren't socialist and you know, we don't have a socialist political party that wins elections. So, so then what does a socialist organization do? Speaker 1 00:49:46 And let me be a little provocative in saying that everything that both of you are saying is like my language and you know, like the strategic approach, the things you're talking about, balancing all of it make a lot of sense. But the except up to talking about this sort of like dirty stay versus dirty break versus realignment and a kind of agnosticism about it. It sounds, it reminds me a lot about of the one China policy and bear with me there, but it's like everyone agrees, right? China agrees and Taiwan half the time agrees and the United States agrees. Everybody agrees. There's only one China right now. Uh, it's divided, but there's only one seat in the UN and one China. And right now the People's Republic has the seat before Taiwan had it or the the Republic did. But like, you can't disrupt that consensus to agree to a thing that is in fact not true. Speaker 1 00:50:46 And this is like why younger Taiwanese folks are voting for independence parties. And so because they're just like, it's not, it's not true. We're separate countries. We should just be separate countries. And it feels the same way when we get stuck in these conversations about like, well maybe someday there'll be an independent party of the left that we'll be part of. And then that just sort of like hangs there. Why be agnostic about that? Like, it seems to me very, very clear that it's not going to be, and that was like the refreshing thing about Harrington was just being like, it's not gonna happen. We're not gonna have a, you know, third party of the left. We're not gonna have a socialist party in the United States. And also anyway, look at the socialist parties that exist. Like there are no cup tea right now or there are no like great shakes right now. Speaker 1 00:51:36 And, and the the last piece of that to clarify what I think is the disagreement between David and I about, um, realignment is actually not, I don't disagree with his definition of what realignment is now. Like the realignment project now is to move the Democratic party to the left on, you know, core economic justice questions to make it more social democratic. But started when Harrington was talking about it, when it started, the Democratic party was half fascist. It was half a southern party of white supremacy and it had a whole bunch of like weirdos and extremist, anti-communists and like all kinds of lunatics. And the realignment project was to get rid of those people, get the liberals, uh, who were Republicans in the north together and, and make the parties a left right party. And it happened. I mean, it, it's like one of the biggest, most important shifts in American politics. Speaker 1 00:52:35 The parties are now aligned, left to right. Uh, you know, while we are mad that the Democrats are too centrist, most of the country is are, is like pissed off that the parties are like too stratified, too polarized. And it was work by activists, real people on the ground that like made that realignment happen. It wasn't just, it didn't just happen naturally happened because people did work. So like we have, we would have to do work and have strategy and do work to move the party in a d a direction now, but like half of that job, which was a big part of it, I mean it was the party of segregation, now it's the party of liberal milk toast integration. But that was, there's blood for that fight. Like people died to do that. So anyway, I, my point being that I feel like realignment gets a bad rap because it seems to describe some kind of like force of nature. Speaker 1 00:53:27 Like, oh hey, it hasn't happened. Like the Democrats aren't socialists, so it failed. And that's just weird. And then I will be self-critical and say that I understand that like the realignment position has never had any juice like activism or strategy behind it since the eighties within dsa. It didn't when I was there. David's absolutely right about that. Um, like that was kind of our consensus, but we didn't do anything. But what I think is interesting, David, about what you said is that I actually think the reason we didn't do much on it was a similar frozen consensus or stalemate. Even if the, the, the, um, the numbers were different. There was always a minority within the organization that was like, oh no, we can never be anywhere near the Democrats. I mean the, in terms of the celebrities you had, um, Barbara, Aaron Reich, um, Cornell West was always like weird and waffly on that. Speaker 1 00:54:22 He'd sort of change his mind about it. But then in the grassroots there were just like always a minority, but enough to just block us doing anything. That was definitely true in y d s. Every time we tried to be like, we now have a strategy in the college Democrats, it would fail cuz people would just be like, that's icky. So I feel like we've, we've been in treading water actually for decades and nothing followed up the theoretical articulation of realignment with an actual socialist engagement in it. Okay, so those are my two two rants and I'm interested in hearing you disprove me or, Speaker 3 00:54:56 So I would push back beginning here, which is that I think you see or I agree with. So let's start with the con the, the quasi consensus slash which I think the better word is like scale made or impasse. Um, right now. So the reason why I am more agnostic is that I have come to the conclusion that one objectively DSA members aren't that interested in doing this democratic party work. I've made arguments and where it could be effective, people don't interested. So there's a point where like I'm like, you know, if people aren't gonna do it, they're not gonna do it. So it's like why am I gonna stress out? Two is that I think, which is like not my unique observation, but I feel is always lost in these, whether it's people being like too rosy about realignment or just being cynical or sectarian democratic parties in new is many institutions. Speaker 3 00:55:50 We could like run county committees in New York and that still won't change the D triple C messing up <laugh>, uh, you know, messing things up and like funding the wrong races in New York state. And so the Republicans still win the house, which is, you know, I, I'm just giving an example, even though I understand it was more, there was an issue of j how things were gerrymandered, but I'm just giving, it's like you could do all this hard work and it still doesn't change certain dynamics and it becomes, and there's only so many resources. And that the third thing, which I always point out to the people pushing like during your break or clean bake or certain things is like, I think like there's, I pointed out two things. One is like apropo of my job that I mentioned earlier, but it's like not a hundred percent related, but it's definitely adjacent. Speaker 3 00:56:31 If you truly wanted that stuff, you should be pushing reforms that make it possible. That DSA becoming a party surrogate is the like hundredth most important thing versus like having proportional representation in New York City. Again, systems create parties. It's like where I disagree, I reviewed Kim Moody's book and I just, like, he just, he ultimately, it's still his book about breaking impasse is like, there's just a political will lack there. And I'm like, no, I ag I used to think for example, let's go, I always like giving more concrete examples. I used to think, why don't we run socialist candidates, explicitly socialist candidates in blue states, I mean in blue cities. And I wrote an article in Jackin and I just, and I real world have changed my mind. And we look at the example I give in the article is Jabari Bridgeport ran as a green, a DSA member. Speaker 3 00:57:20 DSA spent all this time and staff re and not staff, but like all this volunteer time getting Jabar in Bridgeport, a socialist line in addition to being green. They gave, cause it's New York state, they got him and they got like 700 votes on that versus like the thousands he got on the green party line alone. Cuz like, anyway, cuz they, and the people said it was just confusing after all their work to tell voters that, no, don't vote for him on the green go for him, the socials. They're like, what are you talking about? And then it's just like the amount of effort for what you gain. And then Jabari ended up just running in the Democratic primary three years later in winning. I mean, he did a great job as a green, he did the most, and I'm, he got 29% of the vote. I mean, it was huge for like a third party candidate, but Speaker 1 00:58:01 Did he do anything he couldn't have done as a Democrat? And Speaker 3 00:58:03 Then, then he ends up winning an open seat to you and he is doing reelect overwhelmingly. So it's like those are the stories where it's like, it the, they just like the amount of effort it takes to do, you have to change the system if you want. And then, so I think, and then I think like if we are gonna move to a multi-party system, it's probably not to be, uh, apocalyptic, but it's probably some constitutional crisis that none of us can't anticipate that would change. Oh yeah. I mean like, that's why I'm, and so like, how do you plan for, so like the counter-argument that great people says, oh, we should prepare for that. I'm like, and I'm, and I'm like, well, if there's a constitution of crisis, I I think we have bigger problems <laugh> than like, than like, uh, it just starts Speaker 1 00:58:40 To feel like theology at a point. Speaker 3 00:58:42 Yeah. So it's like it's, Speaker 1 00:58:43 We always have to be waiting for this thing that's gonna happen. I dunno, a Christian Speaker 2 00:58:47 No, you're, you're fine. I mean, I, I think that's the reality is that I've found a lot of folks that are not in dsa, um, who often sort of look down on DSA as as to, you know, d so, or or whatever they wanna call it, are often like, spend a lot of time waiting for like the perfect conditions. And it's like, okay, but you know, we're out here, things are still happening. You know, they're, they're not gonna stop just because you're waiting for this like perfect storm of things to happen in order to validate whatever your idea is of like what the perfect answer is to the, to the questions, uh, that we're dealing with. And, and I mean, for me, the reality is like we, we need to act now because of all of these things. And the reality is also that like a lot of these things don't mean anything to the average person who's like, I'm just trying to feed my family. I'm just, you know, like these are really, really convoluted structures to people. Like I think even a lot of folks in DSA don't have a thorough sense of like, just how the democratic party operates, like what the infrastructure actually looks like. And, and Speaker 1 00:59:55 Nobody does. Speaker 2 00:59:58 It's true. Well, fair, but I mean like the but still, and then what I've maintained though is that like, it, I mean, we can sit here and criticize the Democratic party till we're blue in the face. The reality is like people are still waiting in line for hours to vote for this party, right? Like there is still that like, that sense of like, well, this is what we need to do this like duty and obligation. So I don't think we can just be immediately dismissive of like, because we want something more that we, that we think that that's somehow gonna be a convincing enough argument. Because at the end of the day, whether people hate it or not, there is a degree of trust that has been built in, whether it's because like it's familiar, whether it's because they have like very rooted bases in, in different constituencies or in other structures like churches or, or, or, you know, even democratic clubs, whatever the case might be. And those are the people who are turning out to vote, right? <laugh>. Like those are, those are the people that are, that are like really anchoring them in that way. So, Speaker 1 01:00:59 And are not the fascists in their towns. It's like the people that are in their town in north Texas and are like, not awful or Democrat, or like, I guess I'll be a Democrat <laugh>. Like those are our peeps. I mean, yeah. Speaker 2 01:01:11 That's, that's literally like the way to be like, I, I promise I'm not awful. I'm a Democrat sort of thing, <laugh>, and at this point I get it. I understand like the skepticism, I understand this, this idea that like, you know, we could just do it this, but better in a lot of ways. And I think it's, it's a little limiting because I think the reality is that like, we don't know <laugh>, we don't, we don't, we, we can, uh, we can certainly plan, but I, I think like these big questions are frankly bigger than dsa. We're such a small part of not only like the US but the world. I think that's the other thing that I'm like starting to think a little bit more as I develop more relationships with comrades from all over the, all over the world. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> is like, we're, you know, we're fighting the fight here, they're fighting the fight there, but like, how are we on the same terrain? Speaker 2 01:02:03 And like, are our fights actually sort of moving in the same direction or not? And how do they affect each other? How can we help each other out? And I, I mean, again, I leave myself often with more questions than answers and I definitely don't feel like I'm, I'm trying to be prescriptive in any sense, because I think for me right now, good leadership requires a lot of curiosity about what we can, what we can achieve, what we can do, and also what's gonna work. And I think particularly in the international sense, because for as much people want to sort of dismiss our federal electeds, they've given us a lot of, maybe, for lack of a better word, clout <laugh> with international parties. Um, their people are taking DSA seriously because, uh, they see what we've been able to achieve both for our size and then the period of time, um, since a lot of, you know, folks sort of see the 2016 as sort of a rebirth of dsa. Speaker 2 01:02:54 Um, and I think it's important that that's again coming back to like, it's a responsibility of like, what, to, to David's point, like yes, we need to create more socialists and that's ultimately what as organizers, what we should be doing. Um, and obviously a socialist should be doing that in that realm as well. But when it comes to finding our place in sort of this like international sphere and like what it means being, particularly in the US where <laugh> anything, you know, sort of the, the, the default is like, why is this fucked up? Well, the US right <laugh>, it, it, it also creates sort of a, an additional urgency of like having to take this seriously because if we, if we're not successful in the projects of what we're trying to do here, like everywhere else is gonna feel the impact of the things that we're not, we're unable to do or unwilling to do. So I think at a certain point we also, I mean, I think we could either focus on the places where we're sort of at a, at an impasse as, as David was saying, or we can figure out how to move without necessarily sometimes answering these questions, but always knowing that these questions are, are still lingering and still still need to be resolved, but maybe not at this point, Speaker 0 01:04:08 Very, uh, very insightful things that Christian was just saying. And it made me reinforce the belief, what she was saying that I've had maybe because, uh, partly because I'm a sociologist and it's one of the principles I think subtexts of sociology, what am I talking about? Organizations are limited vehicles for any kind of organization for achieving their own goals, let alone the, the hopes of the people who are part of it. Organizations have their own contradictions. And one of them, I, and I really wanted to wonder about tsa, what I observed in SDS development in the sixties. Uh, what I learned from studying the history of, uh, old left or parties, they're kind of two types of members to make it really simple. One is, are people who find their membership, uh, a source of motivation, uh, of support of enlightenment and education so they can work in the real world, uh, for change and be committed and courageous in the real world. Speaker 0 01:05:19 There's another ki kind of member whose politics is all internal to the organization who cares more about, uh, fighting within the organization for whatever it is to ga gaining power within the organization and to me is a big contradiction in these organizations. It's, uh, something that I, I would think should be discussed is building the organization can be important, but if that's the goal of your politics building the organization, you're not really building the movement for change. You're building, uh, uh, you're building an organization. And I'm just wondering whether that's rings, whether that what I just said resonates with experience that, that you have it, it's not that everybody has to be a organizer in the field to be a valid, full-fledged committed member, but, uh, having their eyes on the real world rather than simply, uh, winning points within, within an organization where for yourself or your caucus, uh, seems to me a critical thing. Speaker 0 01:06:30 In the case of, I've studied a lot of, um, interviewing a former Communist party members, and one theme that comes up to a lot of the people that I've known from that history is the further away they were from the organization's leadership in terms of the bureau, sort of bureau bureaucracy of the organization, the more they could be creative organizers in the real world if they followed the party line because that was supposed to be the right kind of discipline. They were often isolated and in trouble in the real world. So, but there were people who wanted to have that party line and really enforce it and make it into, you know, the absolute test of party party commitment. Um, that's an extreme case, but it's somewhat like what I'm talking about is a more general point. So maybe that's something that you wanna, um, comment about if that, if that rings true or, or what, and maybe explain the caucuses a little bit, like as part of Speaker 2 01:07:32 That. Yeah, I can, I can let David explain the caucuses, but I will say one thing, especially because this is honestly, uh, fueling my, my, um, my commitment to not running for say a third term despite being asked is, you know, I I, for me, one of the things that is the most motivating, no matter how difficult it is, particularly in a state like Texas is doing the, the local organizing work that then, you know, can, can be both a source of inspiration, frustration or lessons for other chapters in Texas or for other places in, in DSA and, and really missing a lot of that connection of like talking to people who don't already agree with me of, um, you know, trying to figure out new ways of, of interacting with each other and finding some of these solutions. So both like on a personal level, but also in a political sense, like these are, these are things that are crucial and, uh, why I would encourage, you know, anybody in the organization to take breaks some rest from dsa because I think it's important that we're rooted in, in like everything outside of dsa, uh, for the sake of dsa because I, I do think that then there is a tendency, and I think a lot of this is frankly fueled by the caucus infrastructure and largely because it's an unofficial one, right? Speaker 2 01:08:48 That's there's no officially recognized caucuses outside of like a couple of, um, identity-based caucuses. And yeah, I think like it's really easy. I don't mean, I wouldn't say easy in a, in a ter sense, but it's like easier right to win inside DSA than it is to win outside of dsa. Um, and I think that can be motivating for people to be like, well, you know, I can do this. And so to me, I'm, I've, I've started to sort of like, even within caucuses, sort of like framing whether people that I interact with in, in the organization are either organizers or disorganizes. And it's helped me move a little bit beyond sort of like the caucus lines because I think that matters. It matters how you work with people. It matters like regardless of your ideology, if you follow through on your commitments. And I think also just stick to your point, I, I'm moving away also from this concept of paper membership because for a lot of people, like that's what they can do, right? Speaker 2 01:09:44 They can pay their monthly dues or their annual dues to dsa and that's not nothing. There's a huge political, uh, the dues are a political in nature and the fact that DSA is solely funded by member dues is super important. So I also think like we have to be able to reimagine ways that people can be members of an organization that doesn't require them. And I say this to someone who spends like 30 hours a week on D S A that does not require 30, 30 hours a week on D S A, but involves more people doing less individually so that we can do more together. I think that's super important. But I'll, I'll pass it to David for the, well, Speaker 1 01:10:22 When you figure that last piece out, when you figure that last piece out, please let me know. Because for all of my clients, that's a huge issue too. And any democratic participatory organization is like all or nothing. And that's a, that's just doesn't work with real people. Very important, David. Speaker 3 01:10:38 So I think one thing we haven't talked about that I was one to mention is the left outside of dsa, and I'm gonna answer the question, but there's also this new formations around, um, podcasters and pe and I think there, the classic example that we, Christian and I were most affected by, I think was like this forced the vote push, which was this idea in 2020 that the, that the, the squad and congressional and maybe congressional program squad, but at least the squad could get these concessions from Nancy Pelosi in exchange for holding their vote. Which for a variety of reasons, I don't think, uh, the Democrats Big D can do like the Republicans did to McCarthy. I just think the bases have different expectations, but what I'll say, that's where people go who don't join DSA end up because they take this political, what's the worldview who have, like, that goes from being like Bernie's grade, but it just takes, and they don't go right wing, but they take this like anti-establishment view. Speaker 3 01:11:39 And then I noticed that people in DSA did not support that because even the most ultra people and the people who annoyed us largely not univers, not saying a hundred percent, but largely understood through having to organize and do boring things, <laugh> in from their chapter to lobbying knew that was like, that was a complete waste of time. And it was really fascinating to me. That was like the inoculation by being in dsa, whether you in social majority or even like self, a self-proclaimed more Marxist group was like, that was against the force to vote and DSA came out against force the vote. So that was like a really interesting, so I wanna pause there just to say like, that was a valuable reason to have that you need DSA because it can also inoculate people from like terrible politics, um, that are obstensibly left, that are <laugh> that really are not, are right in essence, um, to use terms from the past. Speaker 3 01:12:28 So on the caucus question, I think what I always describe as like during my time when I first joined dsa, that there were, there weren't caucuses, but there were, and JAK was alluding to this about the minority who was against realignment, but there were broadly three groupings. And I used to always say they kind of fit around magazines for whatever reason. And I was, I'm always the best. There was like dissent, which would've been like I put, would put myself in. That would've been like less social democrats. People who would've been more sympathetic to Michael Harrington or recruited by him new politics where the people who had probably come out of the so Trotsky movement in some way or other, especially the, in the international socialists, but who didn't, doesn't necessarily subscribe to the politics we associated with solidarity of the organization or the i o but were the people who would kind of be like Democrats, icky <laugh> to like bastardize their politics a little bit. Speaker 3 01:13:15 And the religious socialists, uh, people like Maxine Phillips, who I love, who, you know, obviously was editor in descent, but there was a, there was a hu we always made DSA unique. And I say this was a Jewish atheist, but I always appreciated was like largely Christian, but not only Christian people who, you know, were socialists because they believed that was they, that was what, that was God's work to do. And I always really respected and I always loved that about dsa, that we all came together. There wasn't, we weren't and why, like, why Carnell West was a member is mayor of dsa, he said explicitly because it was a place you could be a Christian, you know, and be a socialist. And I think that's was wonderful. But those weren't, they weren't contesting for power because there was no power to contest. The elections were largely uncontested. Speaker 3 01:13:54 Um, people were doing it out of labor complete, none of people weren't doing a labor love now. But it was so unsexy, <laugh> to do that. You weren't fighting over things. And that factions like, or what we call caucuses come out because when an organization grows, there's just asymmetries of information. You know, I just think it's also important to us to remember like who to run for delegate is over. I'm very active in dsa. I don't know everyone who's running for delegate. I rely on my caucus to tell me and the other caucus who I like <laugh> to tell me who to vote for. Cause I don't, I can't pass. Cuz like, now DSA is also for people who maybe listening who remember the old dsa, we used to have like conventions of a hundred, maybe even less people now it's a thousand delegates. It's is not humanly possible for people who probably aren't staff, like even the staff to know who's running. Speaker 3 01:14:41 So you, these caucuses get created, you know, because you have to do internal politics. And that's attention Dick too, where it's like, I would love to, and I'm sure Christian two would love to just be doing social movement work, but DSA can't function somewhat. It's like, do you view the caucus as necessarily evil? I think that's a actually a very fair way to look at them sometimes where they provide information to people because they're people who would take the DSA in the direction I think none of us would want here. <laugh>, you know, and that coxes are also good because they do provide ways for people to organize and articulate to the outside world the views that aren't just dsa, that aren't just the official line in dsa. And that's good and bad. And I think that's reflecting the working groups and that a lot of tensions come up publicly around PR or statements that don't actually come from the national organization. Speaker 3 01:15:31 If you go to the national organization website, there's actually not a lot of statements. It's like usually statements from like the international committee, a caucus, a chapter, those are the ones that, cause I'll use a more neutral term. They cause the get the less hype and, and spark the discourse. I, it's hard to know what the role of, so I, I think there's, I view I tend to most vacillate between caucuses are necessary. Ebis caucuses are good and never caucuses are great or caucuses shouldn't, don't, shouldn't exist. And so you have like different caucuses. I mean like, uh, so there's North Star, which is the one that I didn't join, but represents a lot of people who are close to, were close to me or people I looked up to, uh, when they first joined dsa. There's social majority, which, um, I'm in, which I definitely view as like the a democratic <laugh>, like it's kinda like a democratic socialist caucus in DSA <laugh>, um, in its own way. Speaker 3 01:16:18 And there's a smattering of other caucuses who I don't wanna be unfair to them, but I would say like kind of represent either like people who are doing kind of X I O X solidarity, people in certain formations, people who identify broadly with communism in a small sea, which I always think a lot of us would find interesting <laugh> that they're in a group called dsa. But it also speaks to like how big DSA is to, um, just other formations that, you know, that are also people who I think would probably be close to SM C'S politics, but are prioritizing, uh, different projects like people who come out of like the Green New Deal network, um, nothing. And so people also have their own thing. So, so these caucuses play a real role in, especially around conventions and they play less of a role I think day to day in the vast majority of members' lives. Speaker 3 01:17:06 But it reminds me, I think, uh, when I went to Boden, like, like college Boden had gone from like a hundred percent fraternity life to 30% fraternity life before they were banned. And, but they said one of the reasons they were banned was because that 30% is still enough of a critical mass to dominate <laugh> the social life of the other 70% of people who aren't in it. And so I think congresses have an outside's influence because just by the nature of being organized institutions in dsa, even though they represent a very, probably 1% of the, the membership maybe at most are, you know, are in, in caucuses Speaker 1 01:17:41 I is PoliSci 1 0 1, the first people to, to form a caucus win. I mean, it's the or to like trade votes. Uh, it's, I get it. I think you articulated that very well. The, the sort of nec necessary evil to maybe also good. Uh, I think that would describe where I'm at as well. And you're absolutely right, like the stakes were just much lower passing resolutions in 1996 than they are, you know, directing actual resources, the real resources that the organization has now, um, which just wasn't true in the period of obeyance you could say that I was active in. So I wanna wrap up and give you guys a chance to give closing thoughts if you have questions for us or challenges, things you would like the listeners to just know. Um, I think both Dick and I really had, uh, a really great time, uh, in this conversation and really appreciate both you taking the time. And also I'll say, you know, the thoughtfulness and that both of you have hit issues of kind of humility and long sidedness and openness and, you know, stochasticity as we'd say, um, I really appreciate and hadn't heard in a while. And I don't mean humility on a personal level, neither of you need to be like humble personally, but intellectually and ideologically of like, we, we haven't gotten everything figured out and we're figuring it out. Um, I really appreciate it. So Speaker 0 01:19:03 I agree. I love that. I love that particular attitude that, that Christus was expressing. I've got many questions. That's the only way people on the left can really get anywhere is to keep the questions going, not to think they have the answers. That, uh, that's, that's when danger begins, I think. Yeah. But, but yeah, let's get some, we, I don't know how we're gonna get this to a, a workable length, but, but maybe we will just go with this, uh, long story that we've been telling today. So go ahead guys, with your final wrap up sermons. Speaker 2 01:19:37 I guess I could, I can go first. Yeah, I mean, I, I one definitely super appreciate, uh, both again, the invitation and, and also this conversation. I think one thing that's always super important, and especially for myself as I consider myself an organizer, first and foremost, is like talking to new people as much as possible, right? Making sure that you never sort of like let the, the crises of the world harden you and harden your ability to relate to other people and, and to really see, seek out the fullness of people's humanity. Um, I think that's like an impulse that's really easy, particularly on the left because we, we have a tendency to be cynical sometimes. I think there's, you know, the things that we're fighting for are not easy by any means, and it's easy to devolve into blaming people for, for what their political views are, for what the situations that they're in. Speaker 2 01:20:34 But I think for me, it's, it was clear once I had a better understanding of the systems, how often people, uh, were making choices largely from choices that were made for them. And it really helped me to try to see like, you know, there, there's gonna be, and you know, maybe some of my <laugh>, my political opponents would disagree, but for me, like I know that I am committed to, to, you know, d s a as a political organization for as long as it, uh, is the largest socialist organization in the country. If, if it's something else, you know, pops up that's bigger, then we'll see. But I think that also means having sort of the, the temperance and the, the patience to know that I will be having a lot of these arguments and frustrations and stress with the same people for decades. Hopefully. Speaker 2 01:21:23 That's like the, the bright side, right? Is like I'm 34. I hope that I have, you know, at least a solid, uh, you know, four or five decades left in me to, to devote myself to this project in whatever way that looks like. And I think the main takeaway for me is just like remembering that these are moments where fear is easy and hope is hard. And I think really making sure that we're living out our values in a way that makes hope enticing, makes, uh, wanting to fight for a better world, something a lot more doable and attainable and some, even something small, starting off small, I think is, is really big for people. So, you know, I hope that anyone listening just sort of has a takeaway of like, showing up for one thing, whatever that one thing is. Um, it's enough because there's a lot of folks who are just sort of hiding behind their fear, and I stand by the fact there's more of us than there are of them. And, and we can win the world that we want, um, if we're willing to act for it, if we're willing to fight for it. Right Speaker 3 01:22:23 On David. Yeah, it's a hard act to follow. Um, I also do say good luck and I'll, in your spirit of that, I'll say join dsa if you're not <laugh> you're listening and haven't joined it yet. But I think what I'll talk about is a little different. I'll reflect on something I wrote that I never published, which is a reflect where reflecting on how DSA has changed in the past, uh, 10 to 12 years, and I noticed that when the PRO act was being pushed, that dsa, the organization actually played a real role in what the unions had organized around civic society groups to, you know, push this legislation when like the, uh, about a dozen years ago, there was jobs with justice role. And I think why that realignment happened, <laugh> to a belabor or word you've been using is an interesting thing that I don't have a complete answer to. Speaker 3 01:23:14 But it, to me, it, it's, that's one example of how politics has changed and how DSA is playing a more central role in certain things. And the other example I give too is like, you know, was that is the international work, which we didn't really get into, which I think would be, I would encourage the show to maybe consider doing another episode on like, dsa, how D SSA's international work has shifted, for better, for worse is, but one of the most positive elements on Levon was like DSA sent me, uh, to observe the second round of the Chilean presidential election in 2021. And one thing I came back with was a relation, I met one of the, the Starbucks former Starbucks Union president who then has been elected to Congress and he did a talk with other Starbucks workers in the States. And it was interesting that DSA was actually the, the connector of this, not like a union, not, uh, another global ngo. Speaker 3 01:24:07 And like, so it's like there's still potential. That's why I say there's still potential for DSA to do tremendous good in this international and global solidarity especially. And that's a historic role that DRock and I remember really bringing kind of international solidarity and those stories to American audiences. And I, I think that I would really hope that it's something that we, people also who are getting involved in DSA would wanna push a good progressive vision of that kind of labor and worker, global solidarity. Um, and so I really wanna leave people with that about how, uh, in, in the, the changing role of DSA and in the future is still really unwritten. Speaker 1 01:24:48 All right, I like, we're gonna end on that clash reference. I love it. Um, thank you so much for your time and, uh, yeah, get out there and, uh, let's do the work. Speaker 0 01:24:57 Wonderful to meet you guys and, uh, good luck and we'll stay in touch. We shall Speaker 1 01:25:02 Now. I, I definitely won't qu won't leave dsa. Oh yeah. Thank you. I have a bunch of friends. I, a few of my friends left and I was like, I'll just stick around, but you guys are not gonna make me feel a lot better about it. All right, all right. All right. Speaker 0 01:25:13 Well, well I've faith faithfully paid those paper dues all these years. Speaker 3 01:25:17 I respect that. Speaker 1 01:25:19 Yeah, but you do Speaker 2 01:25:20 You, yeah. Even, even, even if you have to stay out of spite mm-hmm. <affirmative>, I, I fully plan to both outlive both by enemies and my opponents. Oh, Speaker 1 01:25:28 <laugh> spite is, spite is a fuel for good social change sometimes. Absolutely. Cool. Thanks a lot. Good luck. Thanks for your work. Speaker 0 01:25:36 Thanks for everything. So that was, uh, episode 25 of Talking Strategy Making history. Thanks for listening to the very end and hope we got some good thoughts and reflections and understandings from what we've been talking about tonight. We'd love to get your feedback. We'd love to have you share an awareness of this podcast with people who might benefit from knowing about it. We'd love to have your support. patreon.com. Ts m h come back next time for more of what we are trying to do here on talking strategy making history. Speaker 4 01:26:21 We will sing one song of Humble Slave, the Horny, and its Sun of the Soiling Hog, from the cradle to the grave, Buddhist master res of prophets from his toil. Then we'll sing one song of the Greedy Masterclass. They live by robbing toiling mass human blood. They spill to creed. That will one song.