DSA Boston Reading Packet
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA BOSTON 2017 READINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS ALL ABOUT DSA A HISTORY OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA 1971-2017 Bringing Socialism from the Margins to the Mainstream JOSEPH M. SCHWARTZ 2 RESISTANCE RISING Socialist Strategy in the Age of Political Revolution A SUMMARY OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA'S STRATEGY DOCUMENT (JUNE 2016) 15 CLASSICS EXCERPTS FROM THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO KARL MARX AND FRIEDRICH ENGELS 31 EXCERPTS FROM THE THREE SOURCES AND THREE COMPONENT PARTS OF MARXISM V.I. LENIN 35 ELECTORAL POLITICS A BLUEPRINT FOR A NEW PARTY SETH ACKERMAN 42 IT’S THEIR PARTY PAUL HEIDEMAN 60 LESSONS FROM VERMONT LUKE ELLIOTT-NEGRI 68 RACE HOW RACE IS CONJURED BARBARA FIELDS AND KAREN FIELDS, INTERVIEWED BY JASON FARBMAN 74 THE SPEECH RACISTS DIDN’T WANT YOU TO HEAR KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR 88 REVOLUTION AND THE NEGRO C.L.R. JAMES 105 IDENTITY POLITICS & CLASS STRUGGLE ROBIN D. G. KELLEY 117 SOCIALIST FEMINISM WHAT IS SOCIALIST FEMINISM? BARBARA EHRENREICH 137 THE APPROACHING OBSOLESCENCE OF HOUSEWORK A Working-Class Perspective ANGELA DAVIS 146 THE COMBAHEE RIVER COLLECTIVE STATEMENT COMBAHEE RIVER COLLECTIVE 167 ONE IS NOT BORN A WOMAN MONIQUE WITTIG 177 WHY SEXUALITY IS WORK SILVIA FEDERICI 187 ECOSOCIALISM ALIVE IN THE SUNSHINE ALYSSA BATTISTONI 193 CLIMATE CHANGE IS A PEOPLE’S SHOCK NAOMI KLEIN 205 HOUSING THE PERMANENT CRISIS OF HOUSING DAVID MADDEN AND PETER MARCUSE 219 THE CASE FOR PUBLIC HOUSING KAREN NAREFSKY 225 IN DEFENSE OF THE HIGH-RISE OWEN HATHERLEY 230 EVICT THE LANDLORDS JOSEPH G. RAMSEY 238 IMMIGRATION HOW CENTRISTS FAILED IMMIGRANTS DANIEL DENVIR 254 “DEFEND FREE MOVEMENT, WITHOUT ILLUSIONS” On the Significance of Immigration SAM KRISS 282 PRISON ABOLITION ARE PRISONS OBSOLETE? (EXCERPTS) ANGELA DAVIS 288 THE ABOLITIONIST TOOLKIT CRITICAL RESISTANCE 307 ALL ABOUT DSA DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA, BOSTON 1 A HISTORY OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA 1971- 2017 Bringing Socialism from the Margins to the Mainstream JOSEPH M. SCHWARTZ Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)—and its two predecessor organizations, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM)—had their origins in the early 1970s, at the beginning of a long-term rightward shift of U.S. and global politics. This shift to the right—symbolized by the triumph in the 1980s of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher—somewhat overshadowed the central role these organizations played in the movements of resistance to corporate domination, as well as in today's ongoing project: organizing an ideological and organizational socialist presence among trade union, community, feminist and people of color and other activists. DSA made an ethical contribution to the broader American Left by being one of the few radical organizations born out of a merger rather than a split. DSA also helped popularize the vision of an ecumenical, multi-tendency socialist organization, an ethos that enabled it to recently incorporate recently many thousands of new members, mostly out of the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign. If you are committed to a pluralist, democratic conception of a just society then you can join DSA’s collective project, regardless of your position (or lack thereof) on some arcane split in socialist history, or even whether you believe in the possibility of independent electoral work inside or outside the Democratic Party ballot line. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA, BOSTON 2 THE FOUNDING OF DSA THROUGH THE MERGER OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST ORGANIZING COMMITTEE (DSOC) AND THE NEW AMERICAN MOVEMENT (NAM) We were 6,000 strong at the time of merger in spring 1982. Before the merger, both DSOC and NAM had made modest but significant contributions to the trade union, community organizing and feminist movements, as well as to rebuilding a left-labor coalition within and without the Democratic Party. Though shaped by distinct cultural and historical experiences, most members of both organizations had come to the same political conclusions: an American socialist movement must be committed to democracy as an end in itself and work as an open, independent socialist organization in anti- corporate, racial justice and feminist coalitions with non-socialist progressives. DSOC, founded in 1973 when a defeated anti-Vietnam War wing split from the remnants of the Debsian Socialist Party, grew in less than a decade from a small cadre of a few hundred to an organization of nearly 5,000. It had a significant network among trade union and left Democratic Party activists as well as a rapidly growing, predominantly campus-based Youth Section. Unlike DSOC, the New American Movement, founded in 1971, had its origins not in a wing of the Old Left but in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the socialist-feminist women's unions of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Founded by a talented core of New Left veterans fleeing the sectarian excesses of late SDS and graduating from campus to community politics, NAM focused on building a grassroots "revolutionary democratic socialist- feminist" presence in local struggles around issues such as affordable housing, reproductive freedom and utility rate reform. NAM not only played an important role in the reproductive rights movement, but also helped the Left reconceptualize the relationship between race, gender and class. DSOC's greatest political contribution undoubtedly lay in making real Michael Harrington's vision of building a strong coalition among progressive trade unionists, civil rights and feminist activists and the "new politics" left- liberals in the McGovern wing of the Democrats. The history of the 1960s and early 1970s had made the concept suspect: how could a labor movement led by pro-war, socially conservative George Meany, which had implicitly supported Richard Nixon over George McGovern DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA, BOSTON 3 in the 1972 presidential race, unite with middle-class, anti-war and "new politics" activists who often dismissed the entire labor movement as bureaucratic, anti-democratic, sexist and racist? And how could activists of color and feminists trust labor leaders or mainstream Democrats who urged these social movements not to rock the boat by militantly demanding an equal voice at the table? Harrington envisioned uniting the constituencies of the three Georges (Meany, McGovern and Wallace) and getting feminists, trade unionists and black, Latino and socialist activists in the same room talking politics. It seemed utopian, if not naive, in 1973. But by the late 1970s, partly because of the success of the DSOC-inspired Democratic Agenda, coalition politics had become a mantra among trade unionists, activists in communities of color, feminists and the LGBTQ community. Democratic Agenda began as the Democracy '76 project. DSOC put together a labor-left coalition to fight for a real commitment to full employment at the 1976 Democratic Convention. The project, which gave headaches to Carter operatives at the nominating convention, foreshadowed the political divisions of Carter's presidency. After the election of 1976, Democracy '76 evolved into Democratic Agenda, which picked up active support from the leadership of such unions as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the United Auto Workers and the Machinists, as well as from feminists, activists in communities of color and left activists in and around the Democratic Party. The height of Democratic Agenda's influence came in the spring of 1978 when, at the Democratic Party mid-term convention, it got 40 percent of the conference vote for resolutions rejecting the Carter administration's abandonment of the fight for full employment and for efforts to curtail the power of Big Oil. In the spring of 1979, Machinists Union President (and DSOC Vice-Chair) William Winpisinger announced a "Draft [Senator Ted] Kennedy" movement. The coalition brought together by Democratic Agenda reached its fullest political expression in that campaign, although it was ultimately unsuccessful. The founding leaders of NAM and DSOC could not have constructed a merger on their own. NAM's New Left veterans, nurtured by the "anti-anti- Communist politics” of the anti-Vietnam War movement, could not accept the left-wing anti-Communism of DSOC's founding leadership (an anti- communism formed in anti-Stalinist struggles). Conversely, many of DSOC's DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA, BOSTON 4 leaders could not understand the refusal of some NAM leaders to recognize opposition to authoritarian communism as a central moral obligation of democratic socialists. Not surprisingly, the two most sticky issues in the merger talks focused on the organization's ideological positions on communism and the Middle East. Interestingly enough, few members have since questioned the organization's principled opposition to authoritarian regimes of all stripes nor the need for a viable, independent Palestinian state and a cutoff of U.S. military aid to Israel to promote complete and unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The infusion of newer members in both camps spurred the merger process. DSOC's younger activists, many of them students, some veterans of the Gene McCarthy and McGovern campaigns, found NAM's emphasis on grassroots activism and socialist-feminism inspiring. In NAM, former communists, many of whom had joined in the mid-1970s, agreed with DSOC's emphasis on coalition work with non-socialists and valued DSOC's greater national visibility. Joint work on Democratic