councilor.org
| Source | Chris Lowe |
| Date | 99/05/01/02:28 |
| /* Written 10:32 AM Mar 23, 1998 by jshell@netcom.com in igc:labr.all */ /* ---------- "DSA & social democracy" ---------- */ > From andersd@spot.colorado.edu Sun Mar 22 17:44:33 1998 > Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 18:44:00 -0700 (MST) > From: ANDERSON DAVID > Subject: DSA & social democracy (fwd) > > this was on the Labor Party list last December. since it was about DSA, I > thought you guys might be interested. > > Dave Anderson > > Date: 15 Dec 1997 13:32:41 > From: clowe@bu.edu > To: Recipients of conference > Subject: DSA & social democracy > > Chris D., > > Thanks for your message. I have to say it is a little ironic for me > though. Actually I am not that much in touch with DSA anymore & did not > renew my membership. That's partly because their politics seem > increasingly incoherent to me, but partly because you among other people > persuaded me against dividing my time too much. > > Against this there is at least one person locally here who wanted to > persuade me to put more of an LP push on inside DSA. I think what he would > like to see would be on the one hand a coherent LP caucus in DSA that would > give a focus to class-conscious political work not done through the DP or > New Party in or by DSA & its members, and on the other hand, a more > organized social democratic/ democratic socialist (meaning > non-democratic-centralist) presence in the LP. > > I would have thought you would see this as aimed at a secondary > constituency, and as a secondary issue inside the LP. I seem to be > mistaken -- the amount of time you spend worrying about DSA/CoC etc & now > this proposal suggests that your views have changed. > > I will ask that person if he knows if anything specifically concerning the > LP happened at the convention. > > Within DSA prior to the convention, two things seemed to me to be going on, > each of which may have some relevance for the LP. One was that a proposal > was floated out of the National Political Committee for discussion about > DSA taking a lead in forming (or, as I think, trying to form) a new > national movement with a program and style of work very similar to DSA's > but that would not call itself socialist. The underlying theory being that > there were a lot of folks out there who would agree with the program, but > were put off by the word socialist. The vision being that they could move > to a new level of scale (100,000 as opposed to 10,000 members) & use > increased resources to hire actual organizers. > > Interestingly, this conforms exactly to your sense of DSA as effacing the > liberal/ soc dem distinction; here the proposal was to do it quite > deliberately. > > However, I don't buy the view that the problems limiting DSA boil down > basically to the word socialist. There was nothing in the proposal that > seemed to me to address their more serious issues, concerning incoherence > over organizing vs. lobbying, national office vs. constituency commissions > vs. locals vs. isolated "at large" members structurally, reliance on & > promotion of "honorary vice-chairs" as media figures who however rarely > identify themselves with the group or even democratic socialism in their > most prominent locations, reliance on mail-order membership politics etc. > > The one thing the proposal might do is remove certain obstacles to doing > electoral work in Democratic campaigns. Some of the forces backing it I > think were people who were excited by what they see as successes in certain > interventions in congressional campaigns in '94 & who are excited about a > program going on to recruit more members of congress into the Progressive > Caucus. To me it looked like this: attachment to the DP as Clinton/Gore > and the DLC drag the DP to the right is dragging DSA to the right too, into > giving up a socialist identity in hopes of reconstituting a mass liberal > movement as such in what is perceived as now being a vacuum where > liberalism used to be too. > > The proposal was vague about whether it would mean actually dissolving DSA > and I think some questions about that have led to backing off that possible > implication; but that means divided resources in trying to keep two groups > going. But I am not sure, since I don't know what happened at the > convention. > > Meanwhile there is another axis of debate inside DSA that I think has some > relevance for us in the LP. There is a (not entirely organized) tendency > in DSA, or in the debates around the DSA milieu, which is trying to promote > a "laborist" line as opposed to things that are getting labelled as > "identity politics", i.e. politics and groups concerned with issues of > gender, race/ ethnicity and sexuality in particular. The idea is that > class unites where identity politics divides. But in fact the way this > line is being pursued is incredibly divisive; a new version of sectarian > "unity movements" in my view. > > There are two possible ways to criticize "identity politics" as it evolved > in the last 20 years or so. The critique I think is right is to oppose > those kinds of politics that define merely asserting or expressing an > identity as the purpose of politics. If I have my identity, I have won. > That's ridiculous, but very popular on college campuses, which is the frame > of reference for lots of DSAers. > > But the other critique is the one prominent in DSA now: that to identify > on any basis other than class divides the movement. This is nonsense. It > depends on a view of class that says it is only class where it isn't > touched by gender or race or age or language or any of the other multiple > identities we all have. Real working people have to work all of those > things out, as the LP's program recognizes. The point is that for a class > identity & movement to be unifying it has to incorporate, not suppress > other identities, and suppress the oppressions people face due to race, > gender, citizenship, sexuality and so on. I think Theresa El-Amin's > remarks recently, and Michael Eisenscher's speak to the reductiveness of > that sort of false opposition. > > The laborist line is closely linked in my mind to _Dissent_ & to Scholars, > Artists and Workers for Social Justice, who have been doing the campus > teach-ins & work closely with Sweeney & the new AFL-CIO leadership. There > is opposition in DSA & it cross-cuts the lines about working with > Democrats. E.g. Chris Riddiough who is heavily into the congressional work > is one of the clearest voices against the divisiveness of the laborist view > of class. > > The point here is the incoherence. But I have a difficulty persuading > DSAers because the LP is not doing much better with its own internal > problems; we are also incoherent in practice at this point, however good > the theory of a labor party is. > > But what I really want to suggest to you, is that worrying and arguing > about what the social democrats are or aren't doing endlessly on the list > seems pretty similar to dividing our energies among the SD groups. If we > care what they are doing, and it really matters, then we should be joining > them and trying to influence them. If we think that's a waste of time, > that the main constituency lies elsewhere, then we should spend the time > building our own activities and bringing our own pressures and if they > start working, rely on that to bring over the SD's who will get disaffected > by the incoherence & rightward drift. > > in solidarity, > Chris L. |
Copyright (c) 1998, Joongpil Cho