#48 Talking with David Duhalde on Understanding DSA

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign this is Dick Flacks and this is the 48th episode of Talking Strategy, Making History. And today we are welcoming back to our table David Duhaldi. David is a long running veteran leader of the Democratic Socialists of America. He was at one point deputy director of DSA and recently stepped down as director of the Educational Fund, DSA Fund, sister organization of dsa. He's been active in organizing labor and political electoral organizing. He's just written a piece that prompted us to invite him back in which he traces the long history of the socialist movement in the United states comparing the DSA's evolution and structure with that of the Socialist Party in the days of Eugene DEBS, back over 100 years ago when it also like DSA today, ran many candidates successfully for local office, was divided into a number of different conflicting factions but nevertheless was a major political force in its day. So we won't really focus so much on the content of that as getting David to share with us his understanding of DSA. Today. They just had an their biannual national convention and we talk about that and I think it's a stimulating conversation. Part of our long running effort, me and Daraka Daramore hall to bring a strategic ways of thinking for those active on the progressive and left section of American politics. You can become a member of our subscriber community by going to patreon.com tsmh and there you will find all our episodes plus bonus episodes that you can have access to if you sign up as a subscriber. So give that a thought. It's also a place you can send comment and feedback to us which we are eagerly loving to hear from you about. So keep with us. David Du Holdy is next. [00:03:03] Speaker B: Hello friends. Welcome to another episode of Talking Strategy Making History. And on this episode we're going to be sort of reversing our title and our theme and talking a lot about history in order to make some strategy. And joining us today is friend of the POD, David Du Halde who's just recently published a very good, very insightful, I think must read for any of us who are interested in the prospects for of American Democratic Socialism. A really good analysis of the present politics and and issues facing the democratic socialists of America from a historical standpoint. So welcome David. [00:03:42] Speaker C: Thank you for having me. [00:03:43] Speaker B: And with me of course as always is Professor Dick Flax. How are you doing today Dick? [00:03:48] Speaker A: Hi, Professor Dara Daraka Lal Mahal. [00:03:52] Speaker B: Yeah, so well, let's jump right into it David. So this sort of extended essay, I know you've been working on for a long time and really did a lot of. Yeah. Excavation of historical research and talking to people and so forth. But you have a sort of basic argument about what, how we should be looking at DSA today. And it's not to. To be focusing on its internal issues or strategic discussions, just from a lens of the New Left and sort of 1960s radicalism, but to go back a little bit further in American political history. So, yeah. Why don't you give us your elevator pitch? [00:04:31] Speaker C: Sure. So the elevator pitch, though I hope I can give you more of the long walk pitch as well, would be that I believe, and I think my research kind of demonstrates and supports this, that the better historical analog for DSA or the new DSA since 2016, 2017 is the socialist Party of America under, in the Eugene Debs era or the Debsian Socialist era for those who more familiar with that language. And it's not looking at the factionalism of SDS or even the Communist Party that I think researchers and also older DSA activists have kind of drawn analogies to. And also people, younger people, as I quote in Jacobin, as far as far back as 2018 were making. So. And then we can go into why. But I think you'll see that because of the nature of that party a hundred years ago actually resembles much more what DSA is going through, even though it's not a party right now. [00:05:29] Speaker B: Yeah. And so, I mean, one of the reasons that we wanted to come back to the theme of DSA or talk about it again, is because as we are doing a little bit of a deep dive into the Mamdani phenomenon in New York and what it means both for that city and also for the left in the United States. You know, one thing that keeps coming up in the story of how we got here is a dynamic and very impressive grassroots energy coming from DSA in New York. And maybe as a way of drawing parallels to the Socialist Party of your, why don't you also sort of give us and our listeners a little, for those of us, those people who are not in New York, like, a little taste of, like, what's been going on with this organization in New York City over the last few years? [00:06:18] Speaker C: Yeah. So when I joined DSA about 20 or so years ago, the New York City Local, as it was called, which represented all five boroughs, had maybe four to six hundred people in good standing. And now DSA has at least eight or nine branches, so broken down into boroughs which have several hundred members each, at least. And there's now over 10,000 members in New York City alone of DSA. I mean, which is. Yeah, yeah, go. Yeah. I was going to say it's twice the size of DSA that I joined. So I can't imagine at least bigger. [00:06:56] Speaker B: Than the DSA that I joined, but not by very much. [00:06:58] Speaker C: Not very much. But it was still national. Yes, that's national organization. So how does an organization go from which was. And also I think it's for D. And I have both the national staffer. So we both worked out of the New York office. So he was. So how does an organization that had its national headquarters in New York with only a few hundred members go to 10,000 members? Is a story worth understanding too. And I think it's the story of, as I always say, some of it is accidents of history, some of it is great strategy. There's no one cause and effect. But DSA New York still started rebuilding before DSA blew up. One of the first efforts was creating a Brooklyn branch with people who had been kind of coming around. Jacobin magazine and those kind of Jacobin reading groups across the country were kind of nucleus for bringing in people in this kind of medium way, in my opinion, to kind of test the waters of socialism. And then after Trump's electoral college victory, they all, they joined dsa. And then so dsa, around that time of Trump's victory began, it had its influx of members across the country. So New York, New York roughly always represents. So I think now it's more about 10% of the membership. So you're always going to have a ton of people and these critical masses. And because of the size of New York, people made the wise decision of like creating branches that first started in the boroughs or were splitting or split up. Boroughs like Brooklyn is has now four branches. They recently created a Flatbush branch because it shows how many people Manhattan is split into with one part being with the Bronx. But what you see is. Then you see is like enables. It creates, creates a very smart system where people can really drill down and focus on races, on work in their communities. And you have this what's both in DSAs and non DSA's controls. You have an excitement of people who want to run for office and people who like want to volunteer. And that like a way that people felt like in a healthy way in that Trump post, that first Trump administration and so now too. But it was like notable then is like they were like, how can I help out? I'll volunteer on a campaign. I'll do something to Elect and challenge people. And New York City had recently introduced term limits in the city council. So you had these like started this beginning people to win. So New York City doesn't have any success in the first the chapter in the 2017 elections. But by 2018 elects Julia Salazar to the state senate and by 2020 also because I think of a broader anti establishment and throw the bums out across the country with politicians in general is this actually has a super sweep for the state legislator and elects about five people in total I think at least to the state legislature. Now they have now DDSA has about seven or eight in New York state legislature. So you see these them building off each other. And one thing I would just say also if you see this is that there has been a concrete effort and some of the work I used to do in the DSA fund was to support this. But New York was a good model as New York would model what these called socialist and office committees that would bring together. I know this tripartite if you want to be fancy but it was just like the chapter the staff of the elected and the principal themselves. The elected to discuss policy, to plan, to strategize, to really bring forward a more united front. Sometimes they don't agree but this is a way for them to have a real kind of party like or organization or factional within what you I think people hear on this podcast are like a factual within the Democratic Party. Not a very popular stance but like that kind of level organization I think creates a real legitimacy in the eyes of the politically active people of New York voters and stuff. So New York DSA really becomes a political player. And that I will list. The anecdote I'll leave on is I'll never forget interviewing for a job. I hadn't lived in New York City for 10 years and the guy interviewed me. He's like why didn't you mention DSA's on the resume? I was like why would you care? Like, because I was still like just like thinking like why would anyone care? He's well, it's a big, it's important player in New York City politics and well, I don't. And he was like. I was like, oh my God. Like I hadn't thought of that because I was just like treating it like a normal job. Why would this guy. He's not in my world. Why would he know what it is? And that was kind of an. That was like five years ago. So now you can imagine that it's even bigger deal then. And so I Think that's like a good example of like how much the climate has changed in New York. [00:11:05] Speaker B: Dick, does that sound familiar to you at all of the New York that you grew up in? [00:11:09] Speaker A: Well, the New Yorker I grew up in was. Was LaGuardia was mayor who was beloved and LaGuardia. There really are parallels between what Mandani campaign represents and what LaGuardia's political development was. And one way it's common is that there was a Strong by the 30s Socialist minded electorate in New York. Percentage of the electorate based in immigrant communities, Jewish working class in particular I guess on the one hand but then other immigrant communities that not necessarily so left. And LaGuardia was able to weave that together. The socialist minded or the left part of the electorate and the Italian in particular is what he was. But he spoke Yiddish and Spanish I think as well as Italian. And I see Mamdani being able to do the same with the million. I didn't realize there were a million Muslim voters supposedly now in New York and that linked to the same. I see new neighborhoods in Brooklyn and other parts of the city. What do they call it? Red. The red zone. [00:12:26] Speaker C: Kami Kami Corridor is commie corridor. [00:12:30] Speaker A: And we didn't call them commie corridors. I grew up in Crown Heights where you live and I just assumed that every. Everybody in the neighborhood was sympathetic to the same thing. My I was a red diaper baby but I didn't feel in the when I was born and during World War II politically isolated in any way. In fact one thing I'll just give is which I think it's interesting is the Communist party actually was able to elect two people to the city council in New York because we had proportional representation in the city at that time. Meaning that if the party got a certain percentage of the vote it was entitled to certain number of seats in the city council. And there was a Brooklyn council member named Peter Caccioni, another Italian who I think he was very beloved in the borough. He wasn't just because of his ideology. Because I remember as a kid going to a big public picnic for Caccioni's campaign, you know and it was just like part of life there was. Was. Was that so I'm getting this feeling that there's something like that happening now. Is that romantic on my part? [00:13:46] Speaker C: I don't think it's romantic. I think it's very much part of life. I mean I think about personally a lot of my. My friend group is tremendously dsa which is a normal. Which is not like shows it's how much of a part of it. It is like, just part of everyone's existence now. There's just so many social events, an office that I just. Sometimes I was near my basketball league and I was just let me go see what they're up to. Like, you know, that's like a healthy way to be. I'm not talking about the national office, talking about they're still here, but the local office. I just, like, checked in and there's lots of. I don't go to it as much because I have other personal social obligations. But there's just like. Because of the branch system, too. It makes it much more centralized to people's lives. And so, like. And so your life can be your branch. It's kind of almost analogous, kind of. I'll just be honest, like, to, like, Latter Day Saints, where, like, where you live is where your church is. And that's like, how it goes. But I do think it's also. I don't think it's romanticizing either. And I think what's interesting about LaGuardia, not to go on a totally separate tangent, but some of the stuff that was most fascinating for me in my research was like, learning about LaGuardia and the socialist Party's relationship. And that also what I think, what I. I assume I didn't know, so I just could now project selfishly that other people must not know is, I mean, like, the socialist part, that there's this push in DSA to become its own party. And I think what's fascinating when you look at the socialist party of 100 years ago, what I say in the piece is like, the Socialist Party, you know, from the most radical to the most moderate elements, wanted to be its own party. But there was also still this realistic sense, sense by the 20s, that it probably was going to be not the party of the working class, and it was going to be this nucleus for another party. And that LaGuardia, when he was close, when he was a Socialist Party member, nominally, when he was in Congress, he wasn't as, like. I think he genuinely viewed that as, from my understanding, as like, I'm part of this. That's going to be this broader progressive party. When they ran laal that socialists will be a poll of, and I will be in this, like, broader progressive party. And then the party fails for reasons we could have a whole podcast about. But LaGuardia, it's always interesting that he, like, was part of that and that the other thing that I'll just quickly note, which I thought was Fascinating too is that the party then tries this again in 48 with much less success with a trying to recruit a Philip Randolph who turns it down to be the presidential candidate to model themselves more off to find something new that's more like the Labor Party in Britain. And so there's these several efforts where even the Socialist Party is still tech a legal party but wants to run candidates. It still says like can we be the nucleus for something else? And I'm one and I think that's going to be a long term challenge for DSA because I do think even the people want to be on their own party. I think some of them realistically don't think DSA it'll be the Democratic Socialist Party but it might be something broader. But I that's just like on a side note because I think it's interesting because the LaGuardia stuff is very analogous to what we're seeing today. And also LaGuardia is not that he's more complex in a nuanced way, but his relationship with socialism and Socialist party was very practical. And I think the time he was, they weren't able to do everything he wanted to do. But he wasn't Republican in the sense that like he was a, he was just a liberal Republican. He was a real labor Republican. And because he had been, because he had been part of that progressive movement. [00:16:56] Speaker A: Well my understanding to just add to that history is that by the 30s, by the time of the New Deal begin and the Roosevelt administration, there was a recognition in the New York left, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the left labor people that there had to be support for the New Deal and for the Democratic Party. But the millions of voters in New York were not going to vote Democrat because of the horrible Tammany hall machine that they considered really the enemy I would think. So that's what accounts for the changing of New York's election law to allow the encourage the formation of separate parties. But the parties had this strange right to in cross endorse with other parties. So the American Labor Party was formed by the left in New York and it was pretty uneasy I guess coalition because these people didn't exactly love each other, the Socialists, communists. But the ALP was able to endorse FDR and it was also able to endorse and run as an independent laguardia for example, as mayor because he had run as a Republican. But I think the Republicans didn't really, they didn't love that either and want him. [00:18:19] Speaker B: He was on multiple, multiple lines. [00:18:21] Speaker A: And so that plus A proportional representation gave the possibility of this kind of politics that you're alluding to where the left wing parties have their own identity, but they also could form, you know, it's a very European style parliamentary thing. Right. In other words, you could form coalitions across party with different parties and you. [00:18:45] Speaker C: Could. [00:18:47] Speaker A: You could have that kind of. [00:18:49] Speaker B: Fluidity, exact opposite of the European. [00:18:50] Speaker A: Okay, well, you know more than I do. So tell. [00:18:53] Speaker B: Well, just, it's just like it dissolves party lines and it's. And like everybody has multiple hats and so who do they listen to and who do they tell? Go fuck. True, whatever. Anyway. But I want to get more pick up on what you were saying more David, of like what are the analogies or the similarities to the situation now and the historical Socialist Party like beyond New York? I mean your argument obviously is, is about more than just New York City politics. [00:19:20] Speaker C: Well, I'll pick on. Let's stick with New York for a second because I think the LaGuardia stuff is actually a great historical analog and then we can go further. So LaGuardia, as I was noting and this. And I think here are the tensions that I can also give the players who I think now represent. So you have the Socialist Party has tensions around what's its relationship to the New Deal. And at one point Norman Thomas, who's the leader of the party at that point is campaigning with LaGuardia, then a few years later he's running against LaGuardia for mayor. I mean, so it's like how does the Socialist Party also who we kind of like nostalgically view as like, you know, more war, trying to be part of the mainstream, how does it become also an oppositional party? And part of that is that the Social Democratic Federation, as it's called, leaves the party even though the irony was that it was the more anti communist wing of the party. And that ends up going into what Dick is talking about, the ALP working with the communists. And so I think that what you see there is like, you see, I think kind of like social democratic finish could be for lack of a better historic analogy, like Bernie Kratz, people closer to our like kind of broad, historic kind of socialism from above, kind of more mass line leaving. But what the problem now we have is like. And then you can see Norman Thomas being like the die hard DSA people are like, I'm just going to run, no matter. I want to be oppositional no matter. I'm not saying he was exactly like that, but I'm just trying to give people who were like and what you would see in the Socialist Party. You know, give like an example where D from the state D is from. I mean it's very was funny to read about the one Socialist Party city councilor in Los Angeles who gets kicked out of the party because he votes he's the only person so he votes for like the guy for speaker and he gets kicked out. And it's very similar to what Nithya Rahman is going through with the dsa. She's one of now three DSA counsel. There's three socialists. But she's getting flack not only not usually from her city but from DSA members for doing vote doing votes for leadership but she's also stuck through which is also an interesting thing which we'll get to like with people haven't lived but so you have these historical analogies where you have these where DSA and the Socialist Party can't quite still are figuring out how much of do we want to be opposition the loyal opposition to both the liberal left and how much we want to be our own thing. And and sometimes they can't circle the square. And I don't think the Socialist Party was able to circle the square. And I think the jury is out for dsa. I'm optimistic because it's not a party so it doesn't have the same kind of it's not going to be. But there was questions about like the New York mayor's race if like how would DSA1 support someone on the WFP Working Families Party line if the results went differently. Those are real questions but the organization's stronger. So I think where. So what to answer. I think I answered Daraka's question but I really want to harp on this more is that one of my main thesis is that there's one question in each period at a time and I think the question 100 years ago was the labor question was was like did the Socialist Party want to be boring in the boring within the American Federation of Labor before the merger with the CIO or does it want to support more radical formations like the Industrial Workers of the World. And largely they had like disagreements but they were like we're going to be independent party now I feel there's like more of a consensus in in the labor strategy even if it's different than what I had historically wanted but it's more like supportive of like these reform movements and broadly I say like I said the people they want to people need to say what democratic militant unions and they want to get There different ways, but there's, broadly, that's. But with the electoral politics, it's, there's just not a consensus. And that was clear when I said, when I looked at the convention. So DSA had its convention earlier this month in Chicago. And I said like 25% of the resolution 90 resolutions were around electoral politics and 30% of the amendments to those resolutions. So it's like, I mean, there was 90 resolutions and 90 minutes. So, but so it showed that. Whereas, like, it was like 10 were around labor. So it shows you, like I said, that was a good proxy to be like, what are the fights happening now? What are, where, where do you really see tensions within the organization? So, and I'm curious, kind of like how that's, what, what's that you guys have seen? Because you guys have been socialists for a long time. And I am like, also, I don't want to do all the talking. I also want to learn from you. [00:23:23] Speaker B: Both, to know you, you know, your shit. I think that's really good. If I could just try maybe to. Yeah. Just kind of simplify the narrative that you just gave because I think it's an important one. So the Socialist Party comes out of, you know, various militant labor, but also like Christian and religious based reform, organ reform movements, et cetera. It comes together in the beginning of the 20th century and starts like people start getting elected as socialists. Right. And as you mentioned in Los Angeles, but places throughout the Midwest, including taking mayorships in, you know, parts of the industrial upper Midwest, doing well in places like New York, et cetera. And then they're confronted with this question, what do we expect of the people that we've been elect, that we've elected? Should they just be like, voting, there's two of them on a city council of 50. Should they just be like, entering in resolutions for socialism and nationalizing the banks and seeing them voted down but being pure? Or should they be like, working with the rest of the council to whatever, get a minimum wage or a stoplight put in or whatever it is. Right. And as you mentioned, right, there was a wave of recalls and schisms between the party organization and the people that were elected because as you said, they would do things like vote for a Democrat as the speaker of the chamber when there's only two of them and not enough or whatever. And so, and those tensions, like, got, you know, lasted all the way through the entire history of the party. [00:24:55] Speaker C: Really. [00:24:56] Speaker B: Like, I have a sort of like, big question about how that relates to dsa, but I'll Save it. I just want to see if, like, again, sort of for the listeners and lay people and people that don't read this stuff for shits and giggles like we do. I mean, is that like a fair. [00:25:11] Speaker C: That is totally fair. And I would just say, like, if you can even jump to it now. I mean, I think those fights while what was. Just to be clear, what I said, and you understood this, but for the listener, there was consensus 100 years ago about just running people as socialists. But where there's total comparable tensions is like, okay, when those people win, what's their job? Is it to be. And I think to get into is like, are they there to propagandize? And I think there was some nuance in the levels where I think, like, I don't think socialists realistically thought, like, Eugene Debs was going to win, but was president, but they did. But that's. But doesn't mean the local level. Even if for New York Mayor, like, it's Hillquist, who is the. Morris Hillquist, who was the. Coming from the center, was the guy almost over 20 of the vote in one election for mayor. But he also genuinely, like, Was like, no, this is for propagandizing purposes to, like, spread, you know, even though he can't. Even though he did incredibly well. So I think those are really. What's old is new again. [00:26:08] Speaker A: Well, wasn't there a fundamental thing around what came to be called sewer socialism, which sounds like a derogatory term, but I'm not sure it was completely. Because in fact, sanitation and sewage systems were completely underdeveloped in many cities. And the socialists, when they took power, led efforts to actually solve these basic problems of living for working people in these cities. And making a sewer system work was one important example of that. But it was part of a large. If we're able to take control in a city, shouldn't we govern it better than anyone else could govern it and prove to people what government can do in relation to their lives? That's how I understand that particular. [00:27:00] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:27:00] Speaker A: Thing. But that was opposed within the party, right? [00:27:03] Speaker C: By yes. And like. And so, like, what I would say is, like, what I learned in my research is like, the sewer socialism was actually a pejorative by the gentleman I just mentioned, which I don't know if that. That was Hillquist and that Victor Berger, who was the. His rival and friend in the party, who was the more moderate from Milwaukee, called it to his branding, which didn't win out in. In people. He was like, it's the Milwaukee idea. It's like that that was his. His branding. But he said what but I Big Burger's position and the the Wisconsin sources what you said it's like they wanted to prove they could govern and be effective government to win people over to socialism. And their party lasted longer and was more successful because it was. There was also factors that because of like there were their ability to like build relationships within the state house with. With progressives both could be Republicans and Democrats because it was a different time and they were able to you use the state legislature and and the local governments to together to do a lot of good and the party was very. Had a longer shelf life. But and that's so what I mean that's a long way of saying like what we've seen DSA to do is like regional differences are real and profound in how people also approach electoral politics. It's. There's a reason why people are like look at New York, look at Los angeles, look at D.C. where places that elect people and why am I not bringing up Chicago is because Chicago even though it has more elected zose they don't have the same kind of social student office committee as of yet. I think they're building that but it shows like even in the major cities I mean they do have a lot of people but it shows there's not. It's not uniform development I think and some of the elected officials like Jesse Brown is who I know he's a. He belongs to the Bren Rosa caucus who is tends to be more oppositional in ter wanting candidates to be and elected to be more oppositional. He's on the. He's in the Yapis city council. He's a Democrat but he's very oppositional with the leadership to the Republicans in the state. I mean he takes a different. He has a very different strategy and he'll articulate it because he's like party. He's just one person. He's in a council where he does where there where he has limited powers. It's. It's a part time job. It's not a full time job. So it like so these strategies also vary too in how people feel and he feels it's working for him. I mean and. And so I think I just want to give that as an example too where you can elect someone as a Democrat in a blue city and and they'll still but they'll have a different position based on the amount of people they have around in their own political. [00:29:26] Speaker B: On the electoral system we have 50 plus electoral systems and this was a. [00:29:31] Speaker A: Question I actually had in dsa. Is there an understanding of the legitimacy of regional differences or how do the regional necessary regional differences relate to the caucus system or the allowing for caucuses. If you see what I'm getting at, if you have a decentered attitude that says we're going to differ because in strategy and even purpose to some extent because of very different local conditions that people are dealing with that allows for toleration and acceptance of difference and not fighting for control but really saying let's recognize these differences versus what I my image of the caucus set up is people are vying for increasing the power of their particular caucus vis a vis others because they don't really recognize and accept these other positions as the right ones. Do you see what I'm getting at there? [00:30:33] Speaker C: I do and I think there are two interrelated points. So one is the caucuses themselves do have regional I think weight for lack of a better term. It may be like so social majority caucus of caucus and I've said in the paper it's very true has people all over the country but it's not a surprise given its focus on electoral activism that's very specific to like not necessarily being as antagonistic. It, it's better in bigger. It does it has more of a strength in bigger cities because bigger cities are where it's easier to elect people in primaries more often than not or and also get the more prominent people. So even if you can elect someone there's just the media markets for just I mean just being honest like it increase the present the prominence of like the certain socialist electives over other others which causes a whole range of jealousy and other issues that are outside of our control. But so, but that's. [00:31:31] Speaker B: Yeah, but that's politicians politics. [00:31:34] Speaker C: Yeah, it's a non partisan problem to be very blunt. But and then so you have so and I think in general there's an under there is a push like in any political organization to be like please understand like it's it's easier for you to do it here or it's harder to do it here. I remember that about 10 years ago the southern chapters we there was a lot, there was a lot of pushback because DSA has had and has the policy that you have to be a socialist to be nationally endorsed. And the southern chapters were like well it's harder for us to find people who are going to be do that. And there was and they did, they lost that battle. But I, but it was understandable. I understood where they Were their complaints like. I mean and so but getting. But that's like drifts to like. Well the caucuses themselves have regional pull but they, but the thing about the caucuses is especially at the national level is that it become basically the leadership itself is elected at large. So by that I mean like you know you have like a national political committee that Drock and I have served on but now it's 25 people two of which are elected separately as the CO chairs two and then there's the YDS representatives sepcore separate from that but that. But that's so like the regional. So you'll see like if you look at it you'll see like the big cities still dominate because they're the biggest chapters they could but and there's. There's not. There's no like quotas for smaller cities and and regions there's still racial gender quotas but. But because there's no quotas there the big cities still dominate too. So you have a, you have a. You have the double thing where the caucuses ones have an outsized. I would, I would describe you know I'm in one like a cartel like influence on who can win as that's machines are like that. You know that they're analogous to like party machines. Democratic clubs, Republican clubs in any city and the organization still like has a regional disproportions and areas. So read certain regions end up getting more people regardless even if people like someone from another region because it's like because you elect delegates and those delegates vote for the people right from the area. [00:33:40] Speaker A: Well do caucuses battle within cities against each other? [00:33:46] Speaker C: Yes, all the time. So New York City is a microcosm of the of New York City. The caucuses have like groundwork is like the system kind of. I would describe it nicely as a sister caucus for social majority. There's like a formal agreement between the caucuses. By then they discuss who they're going to run for what seats because don't forget remember I was describing for Unless you may understand when I say the branches there's like eight or nine branches in your state. Those branches themselves have leaderships of 10 people. That's not even talking about the citywide leadership of the chapter. So you have like dozens of seats that need to be filled by volunteers. And so look and the caucuses have. It's. It's easier probably to get elected as independent there but the caucuses play a huge role because I Look I'm writing 49 pages about Democratic socialist history but I'm also a regular person. I don't know everyone who's running. So I rely on the caucus to tell me like who's running and who. And so the caucuses play even at local levels play a huge role in. In that. And they have. And also they have a huge role on like the committees, the national committees, like the Labor Committee, the Electoral Committee, the ones that are in charge of enacting the programming that get funding. Like those are like. And caucuses have preferences for what they do. So Brennan Rose is obviously prioritize this because of its history with the rank and file strategy and advocacy prioritize the National Labor Committee SMC cares about that and runs people. But its priority historically or where it's had more weight has been the National Electoral Commission. So but so that. So it's not just like the delegates and the national political community caucuses permeate throughout. And that's. And they. And I'll stop there because I think I told you guys have a lot of questions but I think that was an important order. No. [00:35:26] Speaker B: To make for the listeners. Well, before we get too down into the question of caucuses, the caucuses in dsa both, both in theory in terms of whether caucuses are good in membership, organization and then the specific ones, I actually want to yeah. Throw out the question that, that formed in my head from reading your article, which is excellent and I really can't recommend it, you know, more highly. I think it's, it's yeah. A really good piece. But it in some senses I see that question of the epic, as you put it. There's a big central existential question that kind of characterizes the movement in any given era. Do we create our own unions or work within the liberal or reformist units or whatever and then do we form and hold a political party of our own or work within other electoral coalitions and so forth? But I think that underneath both of them is like the central or is this theme throughout A Hundred Years of the socialist movement of like reform versus revolution. You could call it right. Or highly recommend Donald Sassoon's book 100 Years of Socialism. It's a fucking doorstopper. It's gigantic. It's very intimidating, but it's very well written and it's just like an incredibly detailed year by year history of socialism in power in Europe, mostly over the 20th century. And the theme that he picks up right is that for decades after socialists started to win elections, even winning national power in countries like governing countries, this question of what do we use power for Are we just here as handmaidens for this inevitable revolution, or are we supposed to do shit here and, like, change policy and use it and so forth, Right? And he credits that Scandinavians, like the Nordic parties were really the first to be like, we're not waiting for any thing. Like, we should use the, the tools of the state to change the economy for workers. Whereas in other places in Germany and France, socialists would win elections and just be like, we can't even raise interest rates. We can't do any of that because we just have to let capitalism crumble on its own. And the workers take. So to me, those echoes of like, what do you do with power? How do you relate to liberals? All of those things were like, yeah, this is the ghost that's been haunting the movement from day one all the way through in different iterations. And so my question to you though is, with all that lead up, is I joined DSA and always thought of DSA as the answer to that question, right? That the, the history from the point of the Socialist Party basically dissolving into irrelevance because it insisted on being a third party. The answer is that a bunch of people in the party decided to do something different. And DSA literally was one of the results of that. And so now to see that org, the organization that to me is an answer to a question, be paralyzed by that question again after getting bigger and more relevant, is just like the worst historical irony of my life. I'd say, right, that DSA now has the actual strength to do what it was founded to do, to answer this question and be the left wing of the possible and a left pole in real politics. And it's like sitting, fucking farting on itself trying to think about whether to do that or not. So that's, I mean, am I out to lunch? Does that make sense? [00:38:56] Speaker C: Can you see why I was. Well, it makes perfect sense to me because I know, I know all the players and all the anecdotes that you, you do to a certain extent, but I'll articulate for the listeners and I think just to make sure I understand you fully. So it's like dsa, you know, the DSA that I joined specifically, I remember the left wing of the possible. It was one of the slogans that I joined and for men, for me, that meant, like, you wanted a socialist presence in civil society that was pushing liberals, labor, progressives and allies to be the best thing they could be and you were going to be part of this coalition. Like, as I was giving the out Analog. That's why I brought up LaGuardia, because there was the idea that wasn't the socialist would be the old thing that there was. [00:39:34] Speaker A: Were. [00:39:35] Speaker C: They were building something bigger. And fast forward, you know, 15 to 20 years now you have this organization where that's being debated is that like. And that our friend Peter Frase, who's a. Was from Jaraka's generation. Like, he. He jokes now. He's like, I'm happy now. It's like we're the right wing of the impossible. Like, he says it's some irony, but he has different politics. I. I love it. But he's. But it shows in like, there's, like, there's. There's these people who do want to be being as good faith to them too, who like view themselves as revolutionaries or as radicals and in the socialist tradition and like want to push society further. And they're not as concerned with moving liberal institutions left lib. Left labor institutions. Like, the way. In the ways that I have am. I think I'm. I'm empathetic to like the frustrations. And I think where I differ with people is that I've kind of. I kind of looked in this. Doing this paper as part of this is like. I'm like. I tried to understand, like, how did this happen? How did. And I was talking to like a guy, David, who is. I think I'm probably butchering his last name, but he's a very sweet guy from D to. To like. And he was like. And he was thinking. He. He was reading something another comrade had written. He's like. It is funny though. He's like, DSA did get bigger and then got more radical. He's like. He's like, that usually doesn't happen. And like, how did that happen? And I think part of it is like. And I was going to. That's one of the other thesis of my piece which is they think because there's no Cold War because. And I think that's a huge thing. And that like we were still. Even though I joined DSA after the fall of the Soviet Union, anti communism in that part of history was still enough part of the. And the. The idea that there was no alternative. The strength of neoliberalism that you didn't have. Like, you still had these divisions in the left that were very historic. And then I think there's this new generation who. The people that. The fights we're talking about why I'm trying to reintroduce them so people even know what they are, are kind of meaningless. So they have like. So you have this like, kind of clean slate and this kind of reinvention of a socialist organization that is analogous. That's why I keep bringing back to where you had these fight. These same fights to rock and I. You're talking about. And I just don't know. And I've kind of like made my piece that are like, I still want to advocate for those. My politics in the socialist organization. And I feel like. And that's like where I've come from and where I think. But it is kind of like. And I think for me, the irony, the other irony you're talking about is like, what I try to note to people is like, in the end. And other people in social majority agree with me. They say like, the funny thing is like Chris Maison will say this, who's been a guest of your show too. He's like, the irony is like, people still do Harrington's politics, but then try to rebrand it so they don't. Yeah, so. So what they'll do is they'll run. They'll run. That's why. And what the whole things I've brought up is, I'm like, every time there is a significant moment where DSA could actually distance itself, try to be more independent, it chickens out. So I brought that up in 2021, where there was a vote to like, create a new alternative to vans for those who don't know. Van is like a system to like, when you're doing a voter contact that the Democratic Party operates. The Republicans sure have to. Yeah, it's a software. So like, we'll create a social ban. People are like, let's not do that. That's too expensive. It was totally reasonable decision. And then there's been numerous votes where people have like, tried to be like, we'll try to be more independent and like, people will vote it down. And the most recent example at the convention was they vote. The convention voted to like, we want to rise a presidential candidate. And then someone tried to make an amendment saying, and we should explore a third party option. Explore. And that was. That amendment was voted down because in the end it was like, the end. Even the. This group of who to the of radical. The majority were people to who I would describe as radical or revolutionary even. They were like, it's. We're not going to run a presidential candidate outside of the Democratic Party. There were like, it's just like. And so I feel there's like this funny tension too, where you and I are both like, why don't people get it on Sometimes I feel like they actually do get it. They just don't. They don't want to admit it or say it. [00:43:38] Speaker B: I think there's totally, absolutely. There's a psychological thing that, that clicks in of just like, we can't just be Democrats. Yeah, couldn't. [00:43:47] Speaker A: No, no. [00:43:48] Speaker B: And yeah. I mean, my dissertation, which touched on a lot of the same history that you did, I mean, as sort of deep background, was just like trying to excavate and celebrate, like, how many points in history when the left has recognized the situation for what it is and just admitted, like, we're not, there's no Great Pumpkin coming of the Workers Party. Like, there's not going to be this pure agent of history and we should go and swim in the waters with these other forces and so forth. Like, we get, like, tremendous things happen, good things happen when articulate, compelling, authentic politician with a good record of standing up for social justice runs, you know, in the Democratic primary and like, upsets everything and changes politics. Like, that's, to me, that was a, that's a vindication of Harrington. And so it's. Why just last thing on this thread, they're just like, I, I'm still mad about the sort of editorial decisions made around Jacobin early on in its days because I think it sort of phrased the whole new DSA project as like, we're, we're getting rid of all this dusty old Cold war Michael Harrington shit. We've transcended the question of the Democratic Party and now we're just like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And yeah, if you just want to be the right wing of the impossible, that's fine. But that's, that's a magazine, that's not a movement or like a historical actor. [00:45:12] Speaker A: So let me, Can I make a couple of comments and see what I mean? I admired Michael Harrington not simply because he advocated a certain political strategy, but he really developed a lot of thinking about why that was necessary and how to some extent it might look. And I think some of the complexity of his view is not getting communicated very well anymore. But I'd add to that, take a look at the history of the left in Europe and the United States for the past century and you'll see one thing that's, I think the pattern is overwhelming, that parties, the Communist parties started as revolutionary independent opposition parties when they had a chance for power, as in Italy, I don't mean Eastern Europe, I mean, talking about Western Europe, they became much more of a social democratic style party. The British Labor Party. Same evolution in a different, you know, from a different starting point. In other words, whether you were communists or Socialists, whether you were moderate social Democrats or more left, once the electoral possibility resembles. Really opens up, then people say, well, if you want to win a majority, we can't simply be narrowly ideological. We have to take account of the diversity of the actual working class and the general electorate that we're trying to appeal to. And that's part of the problem. There has not been a homogeneous working class Right. Anywhere. And so the idea of a single party party that actually leads the working class according to a party line, so to speak, all of that doesn't work, and it never has worked. So the parties that have come into being and actually had some staying power and success are really ambiguous. They're not. And they have to be, and they should be accepted as such. In other words, they're different. They're. But, okay, so that's my, My next point, which I don't think any of us have addressed very well. And by us, I mean people on the left who think about these things is what would the right kind of party look like given that context? If you accept the need for a majoritarian party with diverse ideological and cultural and ethnic composition, but nevertheless seeking to win government power, how would that party be organized? What would it look like? Dirac has thought more about this than most people have, and I think his frustration is there's nobody else talking about it that much. The way he's struggling for. Does that make any sense to rock. Oh, no. [00:48:11] Speaker C: You. [00:48:11] Speaker A: And. And that's why we founded this podcast, was to get into some of these questions. So this was exactly on point. But I, I don't, I don't think I blame the young people in the DSA who discussed it with the Democrats. I understand their disgust. But that discuss should be answered and maybe could be answered by a more embracing, you know, developed view of what is it we're struggling for in the Democratic Party. The. The idea of quote, dirty break sounds to me like not seriously addressing that question, saying, well, we'll tolerate the Democrats until we're able to get rid of the Democrat. [00:48:53] Speaker B: No, that's day. [00:48:55] Speaker C: No. Deserve to break. No, he's right. [00:48:57] Speaker A: Whatever that. Whatever there is. [00:48:58] Speaker B: Break. [00:48:59] Speaker A: I don't know the lingo at all. I don't know. [00:49:01] Speaker C: You did. Don't sell yourself short. You got it right. [00:49:03] Speaker A: Okay, so. [00:49:04] Speaker C: So Team Dick. Yeah. [00:49:07] Speaker A: So instead we would say the answer to that is, let's see if we can imagine a framework in the. Which still calls itself the Democratic Party. But is. Is. Is moving in a. In a. Is. Is getting rid of the parts of the party that are actually opposed to the. The democracy you might say. And there's. There's important parts of the party. There are this. That was the fight in the 60s. The fight in the 60s that Harrington came out of was the so called realignment issue which was we can't have a Democratic Party with the white supremacist Dixiecrats in it. We just cannot have that. That could not. Cannot be tolerated anymore. We can't have a Democratic Party with dictatorial machines like the Daily Machine, for example, in Chicago. That can't be accommodated in Democratic Party. We need to reform form the party. And that included rules about racial representation, about gender representation and the party. The one thing that achieved was that the party became an electoral framework for the major social movements of our time. Not just the labor movement that was already there, but the anti war movement was really in the party eventually. The environmental movement, definitely. The women's movement, definitely. The civil rights movement, definitely. That's the first one really. And so that to me is. That's what my view of the Democratic Party is. Its potential is the home for and the place for the electoral expression of the social movements to a great extent. And Daraka may have a different take on it. But the point is I don't know that that's discussion in DSA at all. [00:51:02] Speaker C: And if I could make. Intervene because I do agree with you. [00:51:05] Speaker B: You're the person we want to hear. [00:51:07] Speaker C: Yeah, yeah. I think there's. I have so many thoughts so I'll try to make them coherent because I agree just. I'll preface with. I agree with dip's broad analysis. So what I often talk about and I believe I bring up in the paper is that there's also this misunderstanding of why realignment may or may not have worked depending on how you. And I think there's one thing is that the. Was premised on an idea that there would be this much bigger and stronger labor movement that does not exist. And that there have also been. So you've won. You have these things like the labor one is also that I bring up in the paper that Morris Isserman's scholarship was very important for is like that the Democratic. There were the Democratic midterm conventions that they just got rid of that DSOC was pretty CR was when they were trying to. Was organizing and they're like oh this is. And the Democratic statist was like oh, let's just get. Let's Just stop doing these things or we'll make it harder. So it was. I always and I brought that up in the paper because like no, there were things that were working and then they people just changed the rules to make it more. And so it's not like it just like didn't ha. Because like if you talk to some people like oh, it never worked well I was like so could you tell me more? No, but I think what, but what's more important to we fast forward to today is and this gets to a lot of things I think why I'm staying singing with DSA is that you have what. One of the things that is like I brought, I brought up why, why DSA's primary strategy is more successful now. And one is that we have weaker parties which is not necessarily a good thing for society. But I'm just saying that objectively. So you have parties where like people like you double. You got rid of hard money and you know, the soft money. So like candidates are more, have to be more reliant to self fundraise so then they actually become independent if they can find like AOC doesn't have to do call time because she gets enough money. So you go down the line if DSA candidates can get enough progressive people to support them or through public financing, you just, they're less dependent on these party infrastructures and more dependent on these like outside organizations that can be democratic like DSA or could be totally undemocratic like super banks. You know, it's like. And you have these party building efforts have largely not gone the way I think people would hoped. And so like my time drock and I remember when we reconnected was when I was at staff at our revolution. Our revolution had this effort to try to really push people to go into the Democratic Party. It was kind of the opposite. While DSA was leaving the Democratic Party, our revolution was encouraging people, but it wasn't well organized. And I would just point out, I was like guys, we have, we have like one staffer, you have like one person assigned to like this work. Like it's like this. It was just like never supported in the way it could be. And so you have people like who are kind of set up to fail in my opinion. And so there aren't these like models where like you go into DSA and there's not. That's my long way of saying there's not exactly this like successful model. Doesn't mean there couldn't be. But it's, it's, it's very frustrating for me because I always, because one of my things is like, if there's a, there's a way I could be building socialism outside of DSA that's still aligning my politics. Show it to me and I'll be talking about what no one's do. No one has done that. Our revolution didn't do that. Even from if they, we even tried to like push it to become internally to become a social democratic organization officially that failed. You know, there were these efforts to like create this alternative just never panned out. And so I think speaking to what you're saying, Dick, is I think like there are great people like Alan Mitsky and progressive Democrats America who I think want to thread this needle, but it hasn't been developed yet. Where there's a way for you to really be like, I'm a socialist with a big S, I'm a Democrat with a big D. And there is this plan and structure for me to be participating where I can do both on a national scale. There's like in Minnesota, which I think is worth you guys looking into for another show too. There are, there is a Democratic Social Caucus in the party and they are doing work and they're dealing. And I think that's why you have these tensions with the Omar Fatah there who like got the party endorsement from Minnesota mayor but then it got revoked. That's actually, that's a study I think we should be looking at about how they're still trying to grapple with that. But, but that's like one state and it's not, it hasn't, not really spread nationally in that, that way. [00:55:20] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean I think you really hit the nail on the head that there is, there have been many waves and many organizations over the years that have said we want to change the Democratic Party, but none of which have had really a very I think effective plan for doing it or, or stuck to if they had a plan stuck to it for more than like four years. And, and if you look at the realignment that did take place that Dick mentions. Right. The fact that we do have a left wing party and a right wing party, we can complain about how shittily not left wing the left wing party is, but the fact is like Democrats and Republicans vote totally different and like they vote ideologically and if you vote for a Democrat or a Republican, you know what you're going to get. For the most part that was an achievement of movements and activists because that wasn't the norm. I mean that's how we Talk about someone like LaGuardia being a Republican and that making perfect sense and time. Right. So, right. So I, I now it didn't get where you and I have talked about this, right. Like when Harrington and others were talking about realignment, they also were signaling like hey, this process by which we're kicking out the Dixiecrats, putting labor in the middle of the party, putting civil rights in the middle of the party, if we are, if socialists get involved in that, we could make that process go all the way to having like a social Democratic style party in the Democratic Democratic Party. Right. And like that didn't happen. Like that part of it didn't happen for a whole bunch of reasons that are worth drilling down to and so forth. But it never was going to happen like automatically. It always was going to be a political fight and all. I like my, I just would like to see DSA more explicitly in that fight. If there's people that are like well placed, that have done thinking that are, that are, you know, doing amazing stuff at the local level in this country that could enforce form, that strategy would be dsa. And, and that's why Dick saying like I feel kind of lonely is perfect is exactly. I feel like I'm the lone realigner, like waiting for my friends to show up. My friends who I know would love to come to this party. [00:57:24] Speaker A: Well, the more specific way, the more specific meaning I had to for that about you, Durac is you, you have a sense of what a real party could look look like Democratic Party that you need to spell out more. But you, but you've thought more about it than, than most of the folks that were interacting with I think. And, but I think there's a couple of points we've made in the podcast that maybe I'd like to highlight just for our benefit and for our listeners benefit. One is that one of the ways to build the party is simply by getting a commitment to support year round grassroots organizing in the, in the Howard Dean 50 state pattern. And that's a major undertaking. But it's nothing to do with, you know, foregrounding ideology. It's foregrounding the grassroots rebuilding of political engagement by working people across the country with the Democratic Party or allied organization and allied organizations helping to build that. My view is that's what would lead to the left because the only way you could go door to door to people is with answers to the problems and the disaffections and the anger that's there. But you don't have to say, let's just Promote and preach the left. You can say let's develop a program. And that's what part of what I think Mamdani campaign has achieved is to have an agenda you can go to door to door with. But it's a left agenda and basically it's socialistic in its nature. So that's one, one way to build the party that I think is we've talked to people about on this podcast and that has inspired me. And the other question which we haven't really gotten into, but it keeps getting raised is this question of primarying within the Democratic Party, which is obviously a strategy that is being built. And I don't know if we have time, we don't really have time today to get into it, but it's really obviously an important and winning thing that's been happening. And I wouldn't have predicted that. I wouldn't have predicted Bernie Sander Sanders would have gotten more than 3% of the vote as a socialist because that was the sds. You know, at Port Huron we decided forget socialism. We don't need that word. That's baggage we don't need. [00:59:58] Speaker B: It'll never sell on that too. Like one last question I think we've got time for or sort of set of questions I want to hear from David on. But it actually speaking of SDS and speaking of thinking about the S word. [01:00:12] Speaker C: Yeah. [01:00:12] Speaker B: So. Well, you said that. One thing you said was that this weird thing happened that an organization got bigger and more radical. And I agree with you that the historical period and being so post Cold War is part of that. But part of that, if you drill down what are the consequences of that, is that there are a whole bunch of organizations like caucuses and movements and move movement veterans, like people with lots of political experience that didn't just come into politics in 2016, who are communists, who are Marxist Leninists, which seems to play a big role in the dysfunction that happens at the national level in the organization. And you know, probably seems a lot less sort of threatening or controversial if you were born after the fall of the Soviet Union, et cetera. [01:01:02] Speaker A: Right. [01:01:02] Speaker B: So those things are. Right related. But, but so one, like I'm predisposed to think that caucuses and caucus like groupings in an organ, a big organization are good because I do think you have to organize the debate and as you say, like know who to vote for for things. I, I get it for that they can be helpful for that. But when they are also age like, like tools of like a cultish ideology and approach to politics like, speaking of sds, it wasn't very long between being like, socialism, schmosalism, we're beyond it when like a bunch of different communists, like, wrecked the organization. So, so how is that not relevant or why. Why is that not an analogy to what's happening? [01:01:44] Speaker C: Yeah, so the reason why I don't think that's totally analogy of what's happening. It's like. And I think Chris Maisano, you know, when he heard Morris Isserman's interview, he, he can. He. We. He and I both listened to him. We were on your show and we're both like, he kind of gets it and kind of doesn't. I think there's a getting it when you're viewing it from the outside and getting it when you're viewing it from the inside. And like, I think from the inside we can share what's the baseline here? None of us agree with those, the Marxist Leninist about like, how the world should be, like, how they should orient. [01:02:16] Speaker B: But whether I should be in prison. [01:02:17] Speaker C: Yeah, yeah, but like, but you. But. But where. Where we. Chris and I would say say as people because we know we're. We have interact with those people more is. And my re. And in. In doing the research too, and I was looking for like, the entries and I would find things, like, people would tell me, oh, like this group came in and then it would kind of fizzle out. And I think Social Alternative was a great example where Social's Alternative both had members who left the organizations to join dsa, who became the Reform and Revolution Caucus. And then the organization itself tried to send people in and that failed and that didn't. And like Shama Suwa joined DSA and then she left. So you would have this kind of like. And this is what I was. What I talked about with Michael Kasing a bit and where he's like, empathetic. Where he kind of is empathetic to me, where he's like, there are still these structural ways DSA is just set up. Not ideologically. It's just like, because it's federated because the caucuses are the way they are, it really weakens like, the ability for like, entries to come in. It doesn't like it. They. It's much harder for them to like, destroy an organization because it's so kind of decentralized, for lack of a better term. And that I. Where. But my big disagreement though is like, I feel like a lot of these people are homegrown, you know, and I feel that they're. They might have and that's why my thing was like, home, homegrown, like sectarianism or homegrown factionalism with outside characteristics that they, a lot of these people like, borrow from other traditions, but they don't actually come from them. And so it creates these. [01:03:48] Speaker B: I care that much whether they're from the outside. [01:03:50] Speaker C: Like you may, but I, But I think, but I think, but I think, but I think, but I think the reason. Well, what do you care? Doesn't matter in the sense that like, I think the people who come from the outside are inherently more destructive because they actually don't care as much of the organization lives or dies, whereas people who join on some level, like, do. And I think that's why the organization is somewhat stuck together. Whether it's functional or not is a separate question. But why it goes through these ebbs and flows because I think a lot of people still are emotionally invested or, and, or politically invested in like, the sum being greater than the parts. And so, so that's not to take away with like, disagreements we have with those caucuses. But I just don't feel like the, this idea that there are all these people who came in is actually totally, like, true. I think there are people who came in, some of them also changed. Like, Chris Catalic is a great example. As the former Cons director kind of was in Solidarity now basically has our politics. You know, there's all these people, like, who came from the ISO who like become left wing social democrats who like work for Democratic politicians now. It's not, there's no like one pathway either. [01:04:56] Speaker B: I mean, I, I can name people who fit that bill and work for Democratic politicians right now and are still sectarian, but we're just like deeply burrowed. But I guess my question, it's like I've heard the outsider thing more as an excuse from like good people in DSA for why they lost. I don't know empirically, I'm not engaged like you are, so I would take your word for like, what percentage are homegrown lunatics and which came from outside, I don't know. But because as I said, people have just been like, there was no way we could have beat them. They were so well organized, they had their own nun newspaper at convention, blah, blah, blah. And I'm just sitting here like, what the. Like of. Of course, like, that's how they are and the. So, but, but whether they, they get it stochastically because it's a thing. Of course we see with the way the Internet and information works. [01:05:46] Speaker C: Yeah. That's a good. [01:05:46] Speaker B: You don't have to like meet anyone in Al Qaeda to be in Al Qaeda now, right? You don't have to meet anybody. You don't have to have gone to a meeting and sold newspapers to be like, sucked up into a market. Marxist, Lenin is shithole. And so that's happening. It's happening in the organization. And regardless of whether they're like, I want to destroy the organization or pull people out of it into my sect, it's almost worse if they're like, I'm here because I'm going to be just like a albatross around the neck of this organization. Because what I'm doing is totally different from what the organization was founded to do, what I think the average paper member wants and the vision that you're articulating. They may both have the S word in them, but it's like football. It's like some, it's like the word football. People could be talking about totally different sports when they use the word football. And if somebody like when I read that article, some mainstream article, maybe it was the one in the Atlantic or maybe it was in the Prospect, but somebody, it was like an article and it was like they quoted someone being like, reflecting on the convention who was just like, well, as Lenin said, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I'm just, what the is going on? People are quoting Lenin at a, at a dsa like, you're never going to be the organization that's going to be important in stitching together that future that we talked about if, like, you've got to bring along Leninists. Well, one thing, or am I wrong? I don't get it. [01:07:08] Speaker A: Yeah, go ahead, Go ahead, David. [01:07:09] Speaker C: Okay. Yeah. I think what I have come to the conclusion of, and I'm trying to find a way to articulate it, that does legitimate, I think, some of your concerns, but also pushes back where I think I should push back the organization, it's not where it needs to be. And I think people would agree that. So it's still, it has, it's never reached 100,000 people members. It's never, it's still has limitations in what it can, staff size, what it can do. It's reached, it's regional. So what I grapple with the contradiction of what you're saying is like, so how does an organization that has, like this politics that. And people who are expressing politics that are marginal yet is bigger and in some ways more influential. I think the country that you and I would have recognized this contradiction, we've pushed back on people but yet is bigger and has people in it who are doing amazing work like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, you know who they wouldn't endorse. Yeah but let me. But let me finish. But let me. But like but I think that. But that's so you're. I. You have to grapple with the contradictions too. Whereas the easiest thing to do is be like oh these people are idiots. I don't want to deal with them anymore. Totally reasonable people don't want to do that. That's fine. I don't judge them too much. I judge how if they are mean afterwards. But I think there's something that has to grapple with is like the people with like Ocasio Cortez's state even with all the mishigas. Jamal Bowman came back and rejoined even after he was treated poorly in my opinion. You know, so there's a there there and there's a fight and there's institutions and structures worth having and that. And I think that people. And also. And simply what I would say more articularly it's to channel my Stewart hall is like majorities change like people change. I think people get older now this. A lot of these folks who have won now they're in position where now they have to be on the national board board now they have to actually govern a non profit. It's. It's a lot and and I've seen people change also. I mean you say you see people buried in I've also seen people change like so I it's. You got to pick your poison. And I think that's where I'm at right now. And I think that there's a chance the DSA could become something bigger. But I think that Ali happens with struggling it I think I'm critical of the people who are like well the GSA I once had is gone. Well that would have happened anyway if we're going to be realistic organizations can't stay if it would have been unhealthy, it would have been healthy. If it was like the same thing 45 years after Harrington died. But. And I think you can still be like this is incredibly frustrating. These people are driving me crazy. But they're my comrades or some of the. You know and I will try to change their opinions and I think that's where I'm at. I'm not saying everyone has to be there but I think there's like this total like these people like are totally marginal and I think that's the contradiction we're grappling with where it's like, yeah, they express politics that you and I would find, like, not of the left wing tradition we want at all. But the organization is in this stronger position and these people are leaving. So it's just like it's this. And I. That's why I think it's still worth fighting over and I think it's worth winning people over. And I think my resolution, like, in terms of, like, things I want to do better, not like political thing of presenting, it's like, you know, I'm going to try to, like, talk more to people I don't know, go to the spaces where they are. Not to. Just to try to articulate my point, because I think what the feedback I got at the convention, not just like they were selling work papers, was that, like, there's all these new people, there's tons of turnover in dsa and there's people who join because they get excited about. They hear about these amazing elections, they join and people like us aren't there to greet them. We're not there in the spaces. These other people go there. And so a lot of people end up getting won over by the nicest person to talk to them first, which is just Paul. There's also disorganizing 102. It's like, you know, don't be a jerk. Be very nice. And then people like Dorothy Healy said, and I remember sometimes I even go to like, my union meetings and I thought, what did Dorothy Healy teach me? She taught me shake everyone's hand and say hello. Like, it's like, not inside. It's not like a deep, deep socialist thought. But she, like, I remember her book in her book was like, you guys got to do that. And it's like, that's the kind of like. And then we take it to the next level and we're like, and here's why I think what I think. And I think. So I kind of answered your question to Rocco. I kind of didn't. But, but, but I think that's where I'm at. [01:11:17] Speaker B: I think you, you, you also answered a question I didn't actually ask or, or, or a position I don't really have. I'm not encouraging people to leave. I don't want people to leave. I haven't left. I need to check and see if I may be just lapsed on my dues. But I, I didn't leave with the exodus of, of. Of folks, sort of. [01:11:36] Speaker A: I did not either. But I really. [01:11:39] Speaker B: We're with you, we, we try. We've got your back, David. In the, in the long struggle. I'm just articulating why, like, I personally, I can't imagine spending a lot of time like fa in factional battles with communists at this age. And whereas I am very much interested in talking with people who sort of do get it about, like how we can move a, a realignment politics. And that includes DSA for sure. So. Yeah, I'm a fellow traveler with you, Comrade Dick. Do you want to say anything before we wrap up? [01:12:12] Speaker A: Well, yeah, so I just want to. A couple of points. Just one thing you say in your article is that the majority of people in the membership of the DSA are not in any caucus and may not even connected in, in. In most. They don't even understand the caucus system necessarily. Right. And that was very true in sds. Even in the heyday of the worst national leadership warfare. Most members in the, in the, in the. In the chapters were not affected really by it. They didn't go to conventions, they didn't participate in those scenes. And that's to me a sign of something that maybe needs to be taken account. I would prefer a organization that did not pass any resolutions that met for discussion, mutual debate, discussion, mutual criticism, exchange of experience, but not needing to have national agreement on anything except the general ideological affinity and the mutual support that grows from that. No one seems to understand that that's actually what we have in the world outside of organization. The left for 50 years has been organized more, like I just said, than within an organizational structure. So that's one, one point I would, I would make about this. And the other danger I see about organizations, not just dsa, is that some of the people, and this was true in the Communist Party and I think it was true in sds, People join the organization and that's their politics. Within the organization is how they do politics. That's very different from being in the world of, of everyday life in the water society and trying to be political in that world. And all the socialist movement, the Communist Party and SDS have that kind of split. Well, the internal people are the danger because that's where the battling and that's where bureaucratic attitudes develop. And I don't know how to solve that other than maybe to say we don't want you in our organization unless you have a, a life outside in the real world that has that. That's, that's, that's where you really want to have it. In effect, I don't know how you do that, but that. So that's my. I don't know if you want to comment on that. I'd love to hear you have the last word, David. [01:14:58] Speaker C: Well, I'll also, I'll just quickly say because I don't know if we said it. The piece is called Long Reroute so check it out at Rosa Luxembourg. [01:15:05] Speaker A: I will we'll make it available to our listeners on I appreciate that and. [01:15:11] Speaker C: I think you're one is that I almost have the extreme or the opposite review which is that and I don't think it's actually an unpopular view now. It's like I think the caucuses need to be more regulated in DSA because they have so much power and they're just totally external and they don't have to register. There's no membership list. Like that's not how I think if the caucuses of this much control they have to have some accountability to the 98% of people who are not in them have a right in the same way we say that even if you're just a voter and you never donate to a candidate, you have a right to know who donates to your elected official candidate. We, I mean that's a very important democratic principle we still have in this country that you have a right to know who donates to candidates. And like it's that's not private information and I feel that's the same way And I feel that's not like even a left wing it's just like a very fair Democrat democratic position. And I think that DIA and I I don't know how you would measure I think you were saying it some of she said I don't know how you would measure people having a life but, but I think that what would make what makes DS when DSA is best And I brought this up which we haven't talked about as much and focused on the electoral stuff. This is the labor like my labor work right now I work for my, my public sector trade union. I'm a member on what's called union release. So I go ports of the union. And so DSA is this wonderful way for me to connect with other trade unionists to like that's right. Hear different ideas, see what people are doing, bring ideas back to the union. Like in the most healthy way. It's like it's a sharing. It's a space where we share. We're not like pushing an agenda for me at least it's like I and like we've done able to do good, good things that's very nice. But in the end it's like an organization is going to have people who want to push things who are. Especially when there are resources involved. I'm talking about millions of dollars and like volunteers. People are going to push and that's just the way it's going to be. So I think the happy medium is like, well, we need more spaces like the old Socialist Scholars Conference, the old making. So DSA is, you know. And I wrote after I went to the Socialism Conference which used to be run by the ISOs, now run by Haymark. It's more of an ecumenical event. And, and there was something that happened where we couldn't do this DSA meetup the way we wanted to. And I wrote to the national leaders on the staff and I said politely, I was like, there's no one more sympathetic than me in this world about being how expensive these conferences are, how hard it is. I planned so many conventions with no money, but pinch a nickel, get some food. It's like because people need to meet each other. And I said it was the only way because I couldn't go to the convention is the only way for really me to as a. To, to meet people not in my tri state area, you know, who are in dsa. And that's such an. And like I just made all these. And so I agree with you. I think we just need to create more third spaces, I think is the term for it where it's like people are meeting not DSA members, not in their chapters, not on, but in these like other spaces. And I. That's just going to be healthier for the socialist movement in general if people have real friendships with each others. Kind of campfire Kumba. Yeah, but I think it's very sincere that I think that like what keeps me involved in DSA too is like, I mean I have organic. I have true genuine friendships with the people I've talked about on this call with Adaraka, you know, I mean that's a real. These are real friendships that transcend also organizations and movements can't last if people don't care about each other. They don't have to love each other, but they have to care and like, and like feel that they're. They're. They have some investment in their, in their comrades. So I'll leave it at that. [01:18:33] Speaker B: Very well put. No, it's very good closing remarks. To be in the world and of the world. So thank you very much, David. Thanks for coming again and thank you for having me. Thanks. Yeah, thanks Dick. [01:18:50] Speaker C: Understanding Marks will straighten out your head more than anything that you have. [01:19:14] Speaker D: When I was in high school, I sat in the back row and I thought to myself, this is really for shit. I just couldn't wait to get out and do something on my own. So I quit school and went out to look for. First I waited on tables, then I worked at Woolworths, and then I emptied bedpans in a hospital. But no matter where I worked, it was all the same. [01:19:34] Speaker C: And I got so. [01:19:35] Speaker D: I just couldn't take it anymore. Well, one day I went home and I found my ma sitting there. She'd been fired by the phone company because they said she was too old. And I saw a book in her lap and I asked her what it was. She said, baby, that's capital Volume one, you know, by Karl Marx. And I said, huh? And she said, that's right. Here, take a look. And I read that book. And now I've come to realize that as long as I have to sell my labor power to the boss, I work for his profit and not for myself or my fellow humankind. [01:20:07] Speaker C: Understanding Marks will straighten out your head. [01:20:11] Speaker A: Yes, it will. [01:20:13] Speaker C: More than anything that you have, friend. [01:20:35] Speaker B: You know, I had me a nice looking job.