The DSA International Committee: A Work in Progress
By David Duhalde and Penny Schantz
There has been a lot of controversy about the International Committee’s (IC) current work and history in the run up to the DSA’s 2021 National Convention. That’s good. A vigorous debate over the direction of our global solidarity work is important. Let’s start by learning more about what the International Committee was and is.
As members of DSA’s International Committee since 2017, having represented DSA at various international meetings before then, we’d like to set the record straight—not to argue for or against any particular proposal but to explain DSA history and provide nuance that may be lost in online discourse and partisan disputes.
The International Committee (sometimes called a commission or IC) aims to involve DSA members in practical global solidarity work, build relationships with like-minded movements and parties worldwide, support national campaigns for international justice and contribute to DSA's political education. The IC is one of the few “old DSA” national committees established before the DSA membership skyrocketed, sparked by Donald Trump’s election as president in 2016. Thus, in 2017, the IC didn’t go through the formative processes that helped many newer national working groups and committees to adapt to the changing culture of the new DSA. The IC’s work was largely viewed as abstract and inconsequential to the broader membership.
After the 2017 convention, it was clear that the IC needed to modernize. In late October 2018, its members agreed by consensus to Ethan Earle and Carrington Morris, both from New York, serving as co-chairs. Under their leadership, reaffirmed a year later, the IC opened a formal application and selection process with guidance from the DSA’s elected leadership, the National Political Committee (NPC). Until then, the IC was an ad hoc group and it was difficult for DSA members to find out how to get involved. The new process provided a direct way for DSA activists to join DSA’s global solidarity work on a national stage. A 75-person mega-committee was established.
Of major significance on the plus side, decisions taken by this larger IC represented a broader and perhaps the most representative and inclusive share of DSA views to date. Members shared ideas and reported back when meeting with organizations abroad. The committee also produced excellent guidelines for members when representing DSA internationally. Nonetheless, workload remained unevenly distributed and the body continued to lack distinct lines of responsibility, accountability and a decision-making structure. While the committee could produce statements, it had no well-defined process for doing so. Many outside of the IC exaggerated the prevalence of the politics of one or two committee members rather than the actual consensus and views of the body. So to this day, judgement of the IC’s work and progress is often based on faulty assumptions of the politics of the group as a whole. Lastly, while the NPC could seek the IC’s advice, it rarely did. The two national groups had little formal communication.
Views of what the IC was, did, and represented politically, diverge widely and remain largely driven by social media, second-hand information, and the individual committee member one happens to interact with. This has led to unfair criticism, in particular, depicting the 2017 IC as more “conservative” than it was. For example, the IC supported having exchanges with representatives of the ruling socialist party of Venezuela and categorically opposed any and all efforts by the US government to intervene in its domestic politics. And Cuba never came up; DSA has long opposed the U.S. embargo of that island nation.
The 2019 National Convention addressed many of the IC’s governance problems by adopting several reforms. Today, the committee has two governing bodies, the Secretariat and the Steering Committee, plus nine subcommittees. The subcommittees, with chairs and co-chairs, have on-boarded hundreds of DSA members into DSA’s international activism. While the IC largely adopts statements as DSA-IC, it now has a formal liaison with the NPC. This reduces the workload for the NPC by drafting and adopting statements for the organization. Furthermore, the IC publishes quarterly analysis and activity newsletters that make its actions, stances, and events more accessible and public to all DSA members.
The IC also continues DSA’s commitment to hands-on solidarity with its recent delegations to Venezuela and Peru. The organization has a long history of sending delegations to other countries to observe elections, share strategies and build global networks for activist campaigns. Importantly, ensuring a balanced delegation representative of the multi-tendency of DSA views and a program which includes meetings with opposition groups and activists where appropriate, are essential to providing a credible report back to members.
Even with its substantial improvements the IC remains a work in progress. This was a learning year during which the IC faced its share of difficulties. Interpersonal and political conflicts between leaders have persisted, without clear processes to mediate them. Building consensus on the content, prioritization and approval of IC statements is still challenging. Establishing democratic processes within the IC requires further work. The relationship between the IC top leadership and subcommittees remains unclear as does its practical interaction and communication with the NPC, including the parameters for establishing DSA policy. This is reflected in many convention proposals to change or clarify those relationships. Ensuring both pluralism and gender balance has been tricky, particularly for the leadership teams. While certain tensions are natural and the result of growing pains, some discussion has degenerated into anachronistic name calling. Accusations and snipes relying on Cold War rhetoric such as “third-campists” and “tankies” for example, are counterproductive and divorced from the world of politics today.
The International Committee has tremendous potential. Understanding our collective history provides a solid foundation for progress ahead. While imperfect, the “old” pre-2019 IC functioned and included a multitude of democratic socialist viewpoints. Its members built diverse global institutional relationships of great value to DSA’s ongoing international work.
Learning from our past, it is critical to make sure the IC is more open and democratic, maintain its duty to represent the DSA’s big tent and serve the NPC. We can get there together, but first we need to build trust and engage in good faith dialogue about our collective global project.
David Duhalde, Vice-Chair of the DSA Fund, sits on the IC’s Steering Committee and is its liaison to the Labor subcommittees. Penny Schantz, founding DSA member, is a member of the IC’s Europe and Labor subcommittees and past co-chair of the latter. A trade unionist based in Paris, France, she co-chaired Bernie Abroad in 2020. Both David and Penny served on staff as YDSA National Organizer.