Introduction

The Democratic Socialists of America—of which I am a card carrying member—includes electoral politics as a significant part of their strategy to win socialism in the United States. Socialists and communists, especially in the First and Second International, have also had a significant emphasis on electoral wins. Anarchists, less so, because they see states as necessarily being the imposition of rules from an above and separate entity, and think that significant engagement within the electoral system is inherently corrupting.

From what I’ve run into, anarchist analyses of why electoral engagement is inherently corrupting have not been very rigorous. Revolutionary socialists who don’t want to fall into patterns of authoritarian socialism tend to have a better analysis than anarchists about the sources of authoritarianism and of self-moderation in socialist engagements with state power. I try to represent those analyses in §2. I believe this difference in analysis styles is because anarchists are usually coming into the question with past experiences and observations which prime them to look for reasons to disregard engagement with the state and legislation, while socialists haven’t got that prejudice.

Socialists tend to see engagement with and within the state as a tool to bolster bottom-up revolutionary activity, and we disagree with anarchists that institutions which help us coordinate mass collective action (which would be part of “the state”) are necessarily imposing and unjust forces.

The practice and experiments of DSA electoral “strategy”

In practice, the Democratic Socialists of America has been successful at getting members elected into legislatures and elected positions. If DSA elected officials were thought of as their own political party, we would be the third largest political party in terms of elected officials. DSA members were able to oust Harry Reid’s political machine in Nevada, and get the first majority DSA-controlled state party.

With the existence of these elected representatives, we run into issues of how they fit into our broader strategy. “Is Elected Socialist XYZ socialist enough?” “Why didn’t they vote this way?” “Have they been co-opted as the anarchists said they would be?”

There are a few main events that I can think of with regards to DSA electoral strategy. First is the push to elect Bernie Sanders as president. The rest deal with DSA reactions to socialist elected officials who appear to chapters to be too moderate. Here are three statements in the past three years which deal with those situations. The analyses within these statements make me proud to be in DSA.

On the Question of Expelling Congressman Bowman — DSA National — December 2, 2021

Stand with Railworkers, Build Workers Power — DSA National — December 4, 2022

LVDSA Statement on Nevada State Democratic Party Election — Las Vegas DSA — February 13, 2023

First, it should be noted that this is a good problem to have. Organizers wouldn’t really care to argue about what behaviors for elected officials are “properly socialist” if we did not have nominally socialist elected officials who were in consequential positions. Reaching that level of organizing where we can pull that off is itself an achievement.

Having this conversation is good for developing a clear strategy. To be an elected official, there will be electoral limitations, such as considerations about what actions they can take while still plausibly being reelected, and how to represent constituents if they hold superficially pro-capitalist or reactionary beliefs. If we don’t address these questions by setting up conscious practices around them, socialist electeds might overly-self-moderate to help increase their chance of re-election.

There are also strategic considerations about socialist legislators’ actions. How bold should they be in interrupting the normal legislative process? And, especially without an overwhelming majority of elected socialists, or when the vast majority of their constituents are in disagreement with a boldly socialist position: how do we distinguish between public actions that take useful, materially effective public stances; versus strategically unhelpful, merely performative empty words? Should socialist electeds ever hold back on proclaiming their views, or reframe/reword their views, with the interest of long-term political benefit? How should we even judge the long-term benefit of these different options that elected socialists have available?

How should DSA interact and coordinate with endorsed elected officials while they are in office? To me, lack of effective coordination and communication seems to be the main stumbling block that creates miscommunication and apparent legislative mistakes. However, when we do coordinate significantly with socialist electeds, it seems fruitful:

In New York City, where six state legislators are members of DSA, these elected officials are in regular touch with their chapters, collaborating to set a citywide strategy together. Many of them were explicitly motivated to run for office as a result of becoming socialists. State senator Julia Salazar has said that attending Jacobin reading groups, for instance, played a formative role in her political education. And Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani has spoken explicitly about the need for him and other elected socialists to be accountable to their organization.

— No, DSA Shouldn’t Expel Rep. Jamaal Bowman, Hadas Thier for Jacobin

There are further questions of what some in DSA circles refer to as holding socialist elected “accountable”. What should the DSA’s actions be if an elected socialist politician does not seem to act as socialist organizers think a socialist ought to? How do we organize internally around trying to hold people accountable for their statements and actions, when ultimately, these elected officials might not need DSA for reelection because they exist in a government institution (which is not under DSA control, obviously).

My views

In general, my view is that we ought to generally trust that socialist elected officials are genuine socialists in their hearts, while also talking frankly about the institutional considerations they might have which tend to limit their actions. Non-legislative organizing, not socialist capture of the government, should always be recognized as the heart of socialist strategy and power. Elected positions and legislation are tools to aid the growth of that revolutionary capacity of the mass working class. Non-electoral organizers and elected officials should coordinate their actions, and study and develop theory together. Elected officials should be careful not to become disconnected from working class interests, which means staying in close coordination with the organizing working class.

Usually, building working class consciousness will come in the form of long, hard-fought organizing and community building, in which we show how our socialist positions are naturally in the interest of the working class. Then, we can pass more socialist legislation as we grow more confident that the increasingly-class-conscious working class will robustly support each new piece of legislation. In other cases, building working class consciousness can come quickly, in the form of passing legislation which we expect will be so incredibly popular among the broad working class, such that the working class will quickly learn to fight tooth-and-nail to protect it. This is the case with things like a National Healthcare Service or Social Security.

The more organized the working class is, the more we can get more socialists elected, and the more they can overcome institutional barriers to taking socialist legislative actions. The more elected socialists there are, the more they can use their powers as elected officials in legislature and the media, to help increase the viable organizing possibilities for working-class organizers. This is a positively reinforcing loop, if we can set it up. I think we can succeed in that, but it would need to be a conscious strategic goal.

This is a discussion of the structural limitations, self-moderating pitfalls and considerations, goals, and strategy of socialist electoral work. I want us to be able to use the legislative tool effectively, responsibly, and democratically to help organizers build a mass working class revolution.