This piece dresses up the same tired liberal line: that DSA’s problem is “too much factionalism” and that the cure is for one bloc to consolidate control while everyone else falls in line. That framing repeats the anti-democratic logic that says unity means caving to the largest caucus or to the NGO-style “mass politics” wing.
The real threat to DSA is not disagreement. Disagreement and struggle are signs of life in a socialist organization. The threat is the constant push to split or isolate whole currents rather than build principled unity around shared struggle. Treating internal contradictions as enemies to be crushed, instead of problems to be worked through, only weakens the whole body.
Unity is not built by silencing one side. It is built through principled struggle, naming our differences, debating them openly, and forging a unity that can actually fight. Splitting only serves the ruling class. Holding contradictions together and struggling through them is the only way to turn DSA into a true fighting force.
If we want to “meet the moment,” it will not come from purges or from chasing NGO respectability. It will come from building militant unity grounded in anti-imperialism and the needs of the working class. That is the path forward.
"Unity is not built by silencing one side. It is built through principled struggle, naming our differences, debating them openly, and forging a unity that can actually fight."
Thanks for your comment, compa. For what it's worth, i think this article is trying to do exactly that: engage in principled struggle, name differences, and debate them openly, so we on the left can forge a higher unity and be an effective fighting force.
Yes, that's certainly what I intended. I am definitely not calling for "purges" or "splits." I think for some it may be difficult to distinguish between an ideological struggle and a split. I think of an ideological struggle as an organized clash of differing views about what an organization should do politically, and why (hence my focus on outward-facing political resolutions rather than inward-facing organizational ones)--a clash in which a vote is ultimately taken at a convention or on some other body and a decision is made. I know that DSA forums and X are filled with various caucus members attacking each other with gusto, so there's no lack of "struggle," but It may be that a lot of folks in DSA are really happier without grounded debate leading to actual decision-making that can guide practice. However, I do think that's ultimately a recipe for disorganization, ineffectiveness, and paralysis.
Klas, you've got the whole section in front of you; there's no need to take out of context one sentence which is conditioned by the others. It starts by stating "Key to working with these tendencies—which means uniting with them where possible...," which is to say, working with these tendencies MEANS "uniting with them where possible." However, it goes on to suggest, sometimes that's not possible--in particular, when "they threaten to undermine our mass movements and organizations"--so yes, there is a limit, and the limit is defined by the risks to our mass movements and organizations (something I've seen in unions and elsewhere). Then in the paragraph from which you pulled the quote, it argues "THE RISK is that what should be a minor internal contradiction as compared with that between socialists and the establishment Democrats, IF UNADDRESSED, will grow to prevent DSA from ever meeting the moment." It's not a foregone conclusion; it's a risk, and a serious one. And if it is unaddressed, and that contradiction sharpens and threatens to become a major rather than a minor one, one which prevents DSA from ever "meeting the moment," then those steps which you quoted will have to be taken by chapters serious about mass working class organizing. And even in that extreme case, nobody has to be "chopped off"; but the political line doing the damage needs to be neutralized in order to contain the damage. We obviously disagree about the danger that risk poses, but I suspect you might feel the same if you saw a reformist, rightist danger which threatened to overwhelm DSA.
I’m not DSA. But yes it’s clear you are right opportunists too worried about not tailing your liberal peers in Indivisible, WFP, etc. You seem to forget the united front needs to be led by the Communists and the working class not the furthest right wing section of the front nor the weakest class allies.
Hi again Klas. Thanks for clarifying where you're coming from. It might surprise you to know that I agree that there is "right opportunism" (though I'd be more inclined to say "reformism") within DSA--though it actually has nothing to do with tailing Indivisible or the WFP. More importantly, our difference is not whether "the united front needs to be led by the Communists and the working class," but whether that leadership can simply be declared or whether it must be EARNED--and what "earning" means in practice. This gets close to many of the most significant differences within DSA, in my opinion.
My efforts to meet the moment as a NYC United Federation of Teachers retired chapter delegate canvassing for Mamdani. This was an email sent 11/1 to the retired teachers chapter:
I spent three hours a day for four days phone banking for Mamdani at 52 Bway arranged by the Retired Teacher Chapter. The room was filled with between 15 -20 retirees each day. Callers entered the results of each call in the computerized program.
Based on my individual experience and the comments of others in the room it was clear to me that retirees in Manhattan who answered their phone were divided. Some for, some against, some still undecided. In other words no slam dunk among Manhattan retirees for Mamdani who had been overwhelmingly endorsed by the UFT Delegate Assembly and the Retired Teachers Chapter.
In this highly contentious election I think the UFT leadership's endorsement of Mamdani reflects the sentiments of the majority of members when taken as a whole. It is fair to say that active members would be much more supportive of Mamdani as younger people generally are. I also think that the parents of NYC public school students and other school workers along with the city's poor and working class will also support Mamdani. This is a good alignement for the UFT and active and retired members.
The elected leadership of the UFT made a decision which aligned them with the people as opposed to Andrew Cuomo who is the candidate of the oligarchy. The Cuomo ads aired during the World Series last night were courtesy of a last minute infusion of millions in campaign contributions to Cuomo from none other than former Mayor Bloomberg. Cuomo's thinly veiled islamophobic campaign is a sign of desperation and imo an appeal to race supremacism and support for genocide in Gaza which is increasingly difficult to justify even for long standing supporters of Israel, right, left and center.
Mamdani's opposition to Medicare advantage has been consistent and unwavering from the start of his campaign. More recently he has not come out for or against city council bill 1096 that would block any reduction in benefits to retired city workers. The Retired Teachers chapter voted to endorse the City Council bill. The UFT leadership on the other hand opposes the bill because they say it interferes with their right to collective bargaining. This is worrisome because by law retirees are no longer part of the bargaining unit even though we continue to be members and vote in union elections but not on contracts. How does 1096 interfere except to block changes that would reduce benefits to retirees? It seems like another layer of protection that merits support.
Clearly Mamdani is staying out of a fight with the leaders of the Municipal Labor Committee. He nevertheless assures retired workers that if he is Mayor there will be no Medicare Advantage. IMO this is not sufficient reason to oppose Mamdani and support Cuomo. It is not a sufficient reason to prolong the divisions within the RTC and rank and file opposition that ensured the re-election of the Unity Caucus. Opposing whatever the UFT leadership does, even when they are on the right side of a hotly debated issue (such as Mulgrew's support for the Eric Garner family), is not a program for positive change.
This piece dresses up the same tired liberal line: that DSA’s problem is “too much factionalism” and that the cure is for one bloc to consolidate control while everyone else falls in line. That framing repeats the anti-democratic logic that says unity means caving to the largest caucus or to the NGO-style “mass politics” wing.
The real threat to DSA is not disagreement. Disagreement and struggle are signs of life in a socialist organization. The threat is the constant push to split or isolate whole currents rather than build principled unity around shared struggle. Treating internal contradictions as enemies to be crushed, instead of problems to be worked through, only weakens the whole body.
Unity is not built by silencing one side. It is built through principled struggle, naming our differences, debating them openly, and forging a unity that can actually fight. Splitting only serves the ruling class. Holding contradictions together and struggling through them is the only way to turn DSA into a true fighting force.
If we want to “meet the moment,” it will not come from purges or from chasing NGO respectability. It will come from building militant unity grounded in anti-imperialism and the needs of the working class. That is the path forward.
"Unity is not built by silencing one side. It is built through principled struggle, naming our differences, debating them openly, and forging a unity that can actually fight."
Thanks for your comment, compa. For what it's worth, i think this article is trying to do exactly that: engage in principled struggle, name differences, and debate them openly, so we on the left can forge a higher unity and be an effective fighting force.
Yes, that's certainly what I intended. I am definitely not calling for "purges" or "splits." I think for some it may be difficult to distinguish between an ideological struggle and a split. I think of an ideological struggle as an organized clash of differing views about what an organization should do politically, and why (hence my focus on outward-facing political resolutions rather than inward-facing organizational ones)--a clash in which a vote is ultimately taken at a convention or on some other body and a decision is made. I know that DSA forums and X are filled with various caucus members attacking each other with gusto, so there's no lack of "struggle," but It may be that a lot of folks in DSA are really happier without grounded debate leading to actual decision-making that can guide practice. However, I do think that's ultimately a recipe for disorganization, ineffectiveness, and paralysis.
“they will have to learn to recognize, expose, isolate, and neutralize them in order to save DSA.“
Yeah, this is what we do to our enemies not our friends. It’s wrecker behavior. It’s effectively calling to chop off half the org cuz you don’t agree.
Klas, you've got the whole section in front of you; there's no need to take out of context one sentence which is conditioned by the others. It starts by stating "Key to working with these tendencies—which means uniting with them where possible...," which is to say, working with these tendencies MEANS "uniting with them where possible." However, it goes on to suggest, sometimes that's not possible--in particular, when "they threaten to undermine our mass movements and organizations"--so yes, there is a limit, and the limit is defined by the risks to our mass movements and organizations (something I've seen in unions and elsewhere). Then in the paragraph from which you pulled the quote, it argues "THE RISK is that what should be a minor internal contradiction as compared with that between socialists and the establishment Democrats, IF UNADDRESSED, will grow to prevent DSA from ever meeting the moment." It's not a foregone conclusion; it's a risk, and a serious one. And if it is unaddressed, and that contradiction sharpens and threatens to become a major rather than a minor one, one which prevents DSA from ever "meeting the moment," then those steps which you quoted will have to be taken by chapters serious about mass working class organizing. And even in that extreme case, nobody has to be "chopped off"; but the political line doing the damage needs to be neutralized in order to contain the damage. We obviously disagree about the danger that risk poses, but I suspect you might feel the same if you saw a reformist, rightist danger which threatened to overwhelm DSA.
I’m not DSA. But yes it’s clear you are right opportunists too worried about not tailing your liberal peers in Indivisible, WFP, etc. You seem to forget the united front needs to be led by the Communists and the working class not the furthest right wing section of the front nor the weakest class allies.
Hi again Klas. Thanks for clarifying where you're coming from. It might surprise you to know that I agree that there is "right opportunism" (though I'd be more inclined to say "reformism") within DSA--though it actually has nothing to do with tailing Indivisible or the WFP. More importantly, our difference is not whether "the united front needs to be led by the Communists and the working class," but whether that leadership can simply be declared or whether it must be EARNED--and what "earning" means in practice. This gets close to many of the most significant differences within DSA, in my opinion.
My efforts to meet the moment as a NYC United Federation of Teachers retired chapter delegate canvassing for Mamdani. This was an email sent 11/1 to the retired teachers chapter:
I spent three hours a day for four days phone banking for Mamdani at 52 Bway arranged by the Retired Teacher Chapter. The room was filled with between 15 -20 retirees each day. Callers entered the results of each call in the computerized program.
Based on my individual experience and the comments of others in the room it was clear to me that retirees in Manhattan who answered their phone were divided. Some for, some against, some still undecided. In other words no slam dunk among Manhattan retirees for Mamdani who had been overwhelmingly endorsed by the UFT Delegate Assembly and the Retired Teachers Chapter.
In this highly contentious election I think the UFT leadership's endorsement of Mamdani reflects the sentiments of the majority of members when taken as a whole. It is fair to say that active members would be much more supportive of Mamdani as younger people generally are. I also think that the parents of NYC public school students and other school workers along with the city's poor and working class will also support Mamdani. This is a good alignement for the UFT and active and retired members.
The elected leadership of the UFT made a decision which aligned them with the people as opposed to Andrew Cuomo who is the candidate of the oligarchy. The Cuomo ads aired during the World Series last night were courtesy of a last minute infusion of millions in campaign contributions to Cuomo from none other than former Mayor Bloomberg. Cuomo's thinly veiled islamophobic campaign is a sign of desperation and imo an appeal to race supremacism and support for genocide in Gaza which is increasingly difficult to justify even for long standing supporters of Israel, right, left and center.
Mamdani's opposition to Medicare advantage has been consistent and unwavering from the start of his campaign. More recently he has not come out for or against city council bill 1096 that would block any reduction in benefits to retired city workers. The Retired Teachers chapter voted to endorse the City Council bill. The UFT leadership on the other hand opposes the bill because they say it interferes with their right to collective bargaining. This is worrisome because by law retirees are no longer part of the bargaining unit even though we continue to be members and vote in union elections but not on contracts. How does 1096 interfere except to block changes that would reduce benefits to retirees? It seems like another layer of protection that merits support.
Clearly Mamdani is staying out of a fight with the leaders of the Municipal Labor Committee. He nevertheless assures retired workers that if he is Mayor there will be no Medicare Advantage. IMO this is not sufficient reason to oppose Mamdani and support Cuomo. It is not a sufficient reason to prolong the divisions within the RTC and rank and file opposition that ensured the re-election of the Unity Caucus. Opposing whatever the UFT leadership does, even when they are on the right side of a hotly debated issue (such as Mulgrew's support for the Eric Garner family), is not a program for positive change.
Sincerely,
Sean Ahern