Why Delegates Should Support Resolution #31

By Kevin Richardson

I thank Comrade Ruiz, representing the Bread & Roses Caucus, who has taken the time to write up concerns about the implications of Resolution 31: Making DSA a Multiracial and Anti-racist Organization. While I appreciate the comradely criticisms, I fear that the criticisms are largely based in either (a) fear or (b) a misunderstanding of the resolution. 

I will address each misunderstanding in turn. The text of the The Call article will be italicized.

“Resolution #31 creates an unaccountable committee that is empowered to deprive chapters of resources and to publicly admonish chapters that don’t meet their standards.”

First: the Multiracial Organizing Committee (MROC) would be a DSA national committee. Like every other national committee, this committee would serve at the will of the NPC, DSA's highest leadership body between conventions. MROC would be no more unaccountable than the DLSC, Medicare 4 All Working Group, Ecosocialist Working Group, and so on.

Second: the committee would also be composed mainly of NPC members, who are democratically elected by the convention. By this measure, MROC would actually be more accountable to the membership than most national bodies.

Third, and most importantly: this is not about depriving chapters of resources. This is about being intentional with the resources at our disposal. Every good campaign must have a strategy in order to meet its demands, and similarly, every effort within DSA to achieve a desired goal must have a way of gauging that success. This is what we mean by accountability: doing what we say we will do. The parameters of the possible would fall on an ongoing conversation between MROC and the respective chapter; it’s about providing structured and clear support to chapters who already recognize that their demographics could better reflect those of the places where they organize. 

“Without knowing who will be on the committee or what the standards will be, we could be empowering this committee to publicly call out chapters. We are concerned that this might exacerbate the already problematic call-out culture that often dominates our internal debates, while providing fodder for outside groups to discourage people of color from joining DSA. “

First: there are no punitive measures specified by the resolution, and there certainly is nothing in R31 that calls for MROC to publicly admonish chapters.

Second: it is true that we do not know who will be on the committee, nor do we know the exact content of the standards proposed. But this is true of every resolution that proposes a committee and some set of standards. For example: consider Resolution #2, which Bread & Roses has endorsed (and SMC supports). This resolution calls for the creation of a committee which will carry out some campaign around reparations, but we don't know who will be on the committee. The resolution also charges the committee with "determining DSA's coalition partners in the pursuit of reparations." Imagine if we raised the same kind of skepticism about R2. It’s also possible that the reparations committee could admonish chapters or chapter leaders that don't support reparations for Black people. It’s possible that the committee could engage with the wrong coalition partners. The worst is always possible, but we should not think in terms of fear, but rather in terms of justice.

"We’ve also been big supporters of the Growth and Development Committee’s proposals for multiracial organizing”. 

That is great to hear! Because several of the co-authors and supporters of the Multiracial Organizing Resolution were part of crafting those very proposals. 

Chapters in racially diverse cities, where there is the largest demographic gap to be overcome could be punished for not meeting one-size-fits-all metrics, while chapters in mostly white areas have to do very little to be rewarded for already looking like the communities they organize in...

Moreover, it is local leaders, not national committee members, who are best positioned to develop organizing strategies for their chapters.... Local chapter leaders know their local conditions better. It is hard to develop a single set of organizing guidelines for all chapters.

Local leaders are in the best position to know their local organizing conditions. And this is why MROC will work with local leaders to figure out what works for their area. In fact, we have been doing some of this work in the Growth and Development Committee already. After the NPC passed the resolution to Prioritize the Recruitment, Retention, and Development of BIPOC members of DSA, several members of GDC (and staff) had 1-on-1s with chapter leaders all across the country. For this reason, we know that a rigid one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. Many chapters expressed the desire for more support, and we believe MROC can help GDC with providing such support.

“Local leaders might find this committee’s recommendations and guidelines useful but they shouldn’t be a rubric by which chapters are judged to be successes or failures.”

The goal is to work closely with chapters to develop specific goals based on their organizing conditions, not to release a blanket set of metrics that we magically expect chapters to live up to, for fear of punishment. The purpose of a committee, rather than a temporary commission, is that committees can provide ongoing support. And that is the principal task of this resolution: to provide the support that currently is not readily available for the vast majority of chapters.

Simply put, diversifying the socialist movement cannot be achieved in a year or two through a system of metrics, we can only get there the way our forebears did — through long and deep political organizing. There are no quick steps to take.

R31 does not call for quick steps. Again, it calls for a committee that is tasked with the goal of supporting chapters as they struggle through this very difficult organizing challenge.

If we want to win, socialism cannot remain cloistered in a small, disproportionately white, segment of society.

The author of the article seems to think that our goal is to "diversify the socialist movement."  It is not. The socialist movement is racially diverse. (Latin America, anyone?) Even the United States contains many working class socialists of color. This resolution is about DSA. I believe this statement conveys a critical misunderstanding of the work we have to do.

I will end with a general observation. Comrade Ruiz frequently invokes the idea that chapters will be "punished." This concern is rooted in fear. Some of it may be justified, as there does exist a kind of identity politics that is harmful to the organization. (It's called race essentialism, and I've written about it here.) But I do not believe this represents the major tendency in the organization, much less the tendency of the incoming National Political Committee. And I do not think we should let fear prevent us from taking action to begin transforming DSA into the multiracial working class organization that we want it to be.

If you are a delegate at this year's DSA convention, please vote NO to pulling R31 off of the consent agenda. And if it is pulled off the consent agenda, please vote YES to R31!