This is an opinion piece written by an individual member and was not voted on by membership. Opinion pieces from members do not reflect the opinions of other members and are not chapter approved statements.
The conjunction of Zohran’s victory and the redistricting of CD-1 put the Salt Lake DSA (SLDSA) in a position where it was necessary to relate to and organize around both developments simultaneously. The sudden nationwide interest in the DSA led to a huge influx of members who were willing to organize to elect their own “Zohran in Utah,” and the excitement around CD-1 redistricting presented an obvious opportunity to realize this goal. Though winning a federal congressional campaign is far beyond the objective organizational limits of SLDSA, it was clear that if we did not run a candidate in CD-1, someone else would take advantage of the larger stage and define what a “Zohran in Utah” would look like for their own careerist aspirations. After a difficult period of deliberation (which is interesting in its own right but not relevant to this article), SLDSA activists ultimately decided (and I supported) to run a smaller race, Taylor Paden for State Senate District 13.
Abstaining from CD-1 has had political consequences for the popular understanding of Democratic Socialism in Salt Lake County. Two candidates have chosen to identify with the label to some degree, Liban Mohamad and Luis Villarieal, both of whom sought an endorsement from Salt Lake DSA. Additionally, Nate Blouin secured an early Bernie Sanders endorsement and has secured the strongest “Berniecrat” position in the race. Though he does not identify as a Democratic Socialist, the popular understanding of the aesthetic political brand of the left Democrats is bound to be confused and identified with the politics of the DSA. He has not sought endorsement from SLDSA, likely because he sought endorsement 4 years ago for his state senate campaign and failed. Chapter leaders from the time said simply, “he’s not a socialist.”
It will not be clear to people why there is very little interest in endorsing any candidate in CD-1 from SLDSA activists, nor will we be able to meaningfully communicate why due to our (probable) abstention. After all, if our goal is to further the socialist movement in Utah, how could we not endorse any one of the three “left” choices in CD-1, especially those adopting the label of Democratic Socialist? In this article I intend to communicate my own reasons for advocating no endorsement in CD-1, as well as some of the reasons that I think the average SLDSA member is uninterested.
(For additional context, here are the candidate interviews for Luis and Liban)
What is the point of candidates and endorsing them?
Running candidates for office is often uncritically accepted as useful on its own merits because this is the hegemonic theory of change. To improve society, well meaning individuals are inspired to run for office, and, by the strength of their capacities and willpower, they use the institutions that are ostensibly designed to empower them to do so. Even when politicians engage with a broader mass movement, they do so assuming they are over and above it, commanding the grassroots to empower their personal campaigns and further their political position. This is not necessarily cynical; they genuinely believe those political positions occupied by “good people” is what results in a linear improvement of society over time. This default understanding of social change is also prevalent amongst the activist base of DSA, who sometimes assume that the steady increase of self identified Democratic Socialists in office will eventually lead to a fundamental change in society.
(This point is probably why most of the activist base of SLDSA is uninspired by Liban or Luis. Neither can win, with or without our endorsement, and so they can’t contribute to the increasing number of DSA electeds in office, no matter what they believe.)
This perspective is a misunderstanding of where power actually lies in society and how the working class can affect meaningful change. As socialists, we understand that all sections of society, both within and without the government, are controlled by the capitalist class. It is not a conspiracy but the natural consequence of class society, wealth, and power. Wealthy and powerful people will, more often than not, choose to concentrate and increase their wealth and power. They use it to shape society for their benefit and collaborate with other powerful people to maintain the systems that serve them. There is no secret plot; it is simply logical for them to do so.
This means that even on the rare occasions where well meaning, working class people acquire positions of power in the government, they discover that the strength of their argument and their heartfelt appeals to the rights of common people cannot change the basic realities of living in a capitalist society. Any reform which is possible through legislation is inadequate to the scale of the problem, and even occasional consequential changes will be fought by the capitalist class with every tool available to them. This is why the greatest progressive moments in American history, though often resulting in legislative reforms, were at the end of intense social upheaval and mass actions i.e. The Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the New Deal, the Civil War.
A genuine socialist candidate must therefore have a fundamentally different strategy. They will not view the primary mechanism for change as legislation, but will instead take a class-struggle approach. By their connection to the mass movement and the organized socialist core, they use the position of elected official to reach a larger audience, show the illusions of the capitalist parties, educate people on the nature of class society in their messaging, and contribute to the independent organization of workers outside the government in any way they can. They will not be deluded into believing that the legislative process alone can fundamentally alter class relations. Their success can only be measured by the forces they politicized and organized to fight for reforms in their class interests against the capitalist class, not by the number of bills passed.
It is important to stress that a socialist in office is not useful because of what they believe. Belief in fighting for a better world is useless for the struggle of the working class if it does not result in concrete action. Utah Democrat Party politics shows the uselessness of abstract belief. Because of the conservative supermajority in the legislature, any meaningful progressive reform has no chance of being passed through the legislative process. As a result, Utah Democrats spend their entire careers proposing bills so diluted they’ll pass a conservative legislature, or bills they know will fail for the purpose of performing their virtue on the campaign trail. But without an actual plan to win, there is no consequence of these politicians’ beliefs. Some typical canned responses, “at least they’re trying” or “at least they’re better,” might have a certain narrow truth, but it does not help us advance the organization and consciousness of the working class. It is not wrong to tell people what society should look like. But if you don’t understand and articulate the scientific steps necessary to get there, there is no substance. It is an essentially magical theory of change which assumes that good heartedness has an effect on the structures of capitalist oppression.
Instead, the socialist in office is just one lever in the process of organized struggle, and demonstrates that role by consistent building of and commitment to that struggle. DSA candidates must prove that they are able to use their position to contribute to mass movements, not for the purpose of securing their next campaign, but by winning genuine reforms. Every left Democrat says they are building a movement; socialists must actually demonstrate they can do so. People are generally not convinced by rhetoric; they learn through concrete struggle.
There’s two candidates that are using the label of “Democratic Socialist,” doesn’t that make them part of or contributing to the socialist movement?
In order for us to believe a person can contribute to the socialist movement as a candidate, it is helpful if they have to have done so already. To be sure, Luis Villareal and Liban Mohamad have decided to adopt the label of Democratic Socialist to varying degrees. However, both of them cannot demonstrate a commitment to mass movement politics and independent working class organization. This is not because they are bad people or are intentionally duplicitous. Both attested, and I believe, that they do find Zohran’s campaign inspiring and are dissatisfied with the state of politics in the Democratic Party. They both attested they want society to be more equitable and serve the needs of working class people, and I believe them. However, neither can demonstrate a commitment or understanding of the steps that it will take to get there, either by their ideas or their political history. Neither has a history of organizing social forces in struggle against the capitalist class. Neither could contextualize their campaign’s strategy with the organized socialist movement, DSA or otherwise. Neither has a significant describable and specific history of activism in the mass movement. Both decided to run because they think their personal virtue and social position will lend itself to governing, which is admirable in a certain way. But ultimately they cannot have a conception of how to win the reforms they are running on by mass action because they have no experience doing so.
All this would be fine if it was possible for SLDSA to turn their campaigns into movement oriented campaigns anyway. If we were deeply involved from the beginning, the candidate forefronted their Democratic Socialist identity, committed to a Socialist in Office Committee relationship, and we had the organizational ability to realize those movement goals, the specific beliefs and experiences of the candidate would be secondary. It is helpful to use our current campaign as a counter-example, from an organizational perspective. If Paden had no previous experience union organizing or was not a member beforehand, but committed to the organizational relationship we have with him now, the campaign would probably have the same political character. It is helpful that he has those personal qualities, but they are secondary to the organizational relationship.
Why not just endorse the “most left” candidate, even if they cannot win, because the campaign will attract people to DSA?
A DSA electoral campaign should have two goals. Primarily, the campaign should clearly articulate a socialist politics and move people to action on those ideas. This does not mean adopting the “left wing of possible,” as most left Democrats do i.e. identifying the most acceptable left positions that will still probably get you elected. It means using the platform and attention to make connections between the present struggle and the socialist horizon in the minds of the public. Plainly explaining the illusions of the two party capitalist political system, the need for people to organize to improve their lives, the actions necessary to do so, and the basic reality of class society, even if it reduces the chances of the candidate’s victory.
The second goal is to develop the sophistication, ability, size, reach, political consciousness, and leadership of the DSA. We lend credibility to the campaign’s message through strong organization and coalition building. Most people will not seek out and respond immediately with action to even the best articulated socialist positions. If this were true, we’d have a revolution by now. The organization which builds the campaign must demonstrate its capability by extending the reach beyond the activist base and into the general public. This does not necessarily mean a winning campaign, just one that the public must take seriously. Our goal as a socialist organization is to win the confidence of the masses as leaders of the struggle for their own liberation. If we endorse and organize unserious campaigns, it will only serve to perform some rhetoric for the tiny minority of people who already agree with us.
Luis and Liban’s campaigns can do neither of these things, for our organization or for the broader movement. They developed their platform, branding, strategy, and communications as individuals before seeking endorsement, resulting in a muddled political outlook and a lack of clarity. Though they assure us they are Democratic Socialists in private conversations, their messaging does not convey that either in substance or explicit mentions of the word socialism. It gives the (perhaps mistaken!) impression they adopted it to the extent they could get the endorsement of Salt Lake DSA and branded as Utah’s Zohran, but did not want the word “socialism” to affect their chance to win. It’s almost more frustrating, personally, that they don’t understand that these tepid capitulations are not worth making for our endorsement. SLDSA is a small organization; our endorsement and participation is not going to outweigh the political costs of actually adopting a socialist platform in a capitalist party primary.
Obviously, neither campaign is credible, whether or not we organize to support them. I don’t think it’s helpful to list reasons why I think neither campaign can make it to the ballot because it is a secondary question. Though it must be said that although Liban has taken a more serious approach to campaigning and appears more viable, this is due to his history of working inside Washington DC with and amongst capitalist politics, not because of an understanding of organization. His background working at TikTok gives his campaign the aesthetic of a professional and serious campaign, similar in “vibe” to Zohran’s. However, it is very important to understand the relationship in NYC-DSA’s strategy between communications and organizing the field. The purpose is not to look flashy and get clicks, it’s to create a narrative that clearly communicates the politics of the campaign, a politics which motivates people to get involved on a deeper level. Aesthetics can help deliver a message, but they do not make up for a weak message and an inability to turn that flashy messaging into organized action. Though he appears to be doing an admirable job of collecting signatures, he stated in the interview this is because he is paying for signature gatherers, not because the campaign is organizing volunteers.
(Additional listening on the Zohran campaign strategy, The Dig episodes “Three Million Doors” “Zohran’s Message” “How Zohran Won w/ NYC DSA”)
For these reasons, this means that an endorsement in the present conditions would be nothing more than our logo on their campaign websites. Over time, DSA activists are becoming more critical of their use of the endorsement and are shying away from “paper” endorsements, meaning one which just exists as a rubber stamp on the campaign website and isn’t associated with any action from activists. This is how endorsements from most non-profits, unions, and Democrat aligned groups work, perhaps with a cash donation. Instead, a DSA endorsement means that we are going to move people to action, both inside and outside the activist base of the chapter. We’ll do that difficult work because we think the campaign can increase class consciousness and working class organization, which is the primary goal of a socialist campaign. This is an important part of the scientific approach to socialism; actually fighting for something in the world, not just writing down an endorsement statement on a page that almost nobody will read all the way through. If we do paper endorsements, it teaches our base that we think rhetoric alone is an effective form of political action. To those outside our base, it teaches them nothing, because they won’t have reason to care.
Then what are the next steps for SLDSA?
All of these arguments are not being made to the public, because we abstained from the race. It is not persuasive to the public to abstain from struggle, especially in the current situation of generalized disorganization, lack of left leadership, and low level of class-consciousness. I don’t believe I’m making a sectarian argument for no endorsement, rather an acknowledgement of our objective limitations as an organization in relative infancy taking its first steps. If we were more organized and identified a stronger candidate for CD-1, then the best course of action would have been to run in CD-1, but I agree with the direction we chose. SLDSA should continue to organize to create the strongest possible campaign in State Senate District 13, develop new connections, widen our activist base, qualitatively change our organization to a real power player (however small), and then use the campaign as a springboard to a struggle for a concrete reform. I believe the Paden campaign has already demonstrated that the Salt Lake DSA is capable of taking on a bigger fight for a specific reform. It is hard to say the precise form that will take, an evaluation in June after the primary ends will be necessary before we can say. But an endorsement in CD-1 would be a distraction with no obvious positive outcomes.
