“Can We Meet the Moment?” The question posed by Tom Goodkind in his analysis of the 2025 DSA Convention spurred debate and discussion on the left. To sharpen our collective thinking, The New Liberator is publishing a series of responses, rejoinders, and hot takes. Here, Jane Slaughter and Connor Wright weigh in.

We agree with much of what Tom Goodkind has to say about the content of DSA’s 2025 convention. It felt odd that we were barely mentioning Trumpism and what to do about it. Most of the consequential, what-DSA-will-do resolutions were shunted into the Consent Agenda. That left a majority of convention time for inward-facing controversies and vast amounts of procedural motions. It would be much more productive for convention delegates to discuss our political differences openly, on the floor, with clear outcomes. Save the Consent Agenda for less important or housekeeping-type resolutions.

But we disagree with his assessment of DSA and the political moment.

It wasn’t a major part of his argument, but as Bread & Roses members we’d like to correct the record on Goodkind’s characterization of our caucus as “ambivalen[t] towards class struggle on the electoral terrain.” A few minutes of online research or conversation with any B&R member would show that our caucus devotes a huge amount of time and energy to electoral work. We have elected multiple socialist city councilors, are campaigning right now for more, and help lead chapters’ electoral work for many DSA candidates, from Portland, Oregon to Louisville to Jersey City. “Class-struggle elections” has been our slogan and our practice since we were founded in 2019.

This is part of a broader problem with the piece. Goodkind speaks highly of the two caucuses (SMC and Groundwork) he sees as promoting “mass politics,” which he defines as “creative outward-facing mass organizing and contestation for power on all terrains of class struggle – from the workplace to the community to the electoral [sphere].” Most other politically active DSA members – thousands of unionists, electoral organizers, young activists, chapter leaders – he dismisses as “electoral abstentionists” and “sectarians.”

But “contest[ing] for power on all terrains of class struggle” is how any socialist group would describe their aims, even PSL or the Sparts. And every major tendency in DSA believes in contesting elections. So what are the actual disagreements?

The real line Goodkind seems to be drawing is based on socialists’ participation in the Democratic Party. A big chunk of this vision of “mass politics” involves GOTV for Democratic politicians, especially at the federal level. This is “mass” in the sense that thousands of people participate – even millions in the presidential race. It’s also “mass” in a deeper sense that Goodkind alludes to when he talks about “centering the fight against fascism.” Liberation Road sees the fight against fascism as the “principal contradiction” (or “the most important fight”) of our political moment. All other “contradictions” – including the one between workers and capitalists – are “secondary.” In this view, masses of working people should make their main political priority electing as many Democrats as possible, and socialists should too.

We propose a much different idea of mass politics. We don’t think our ambitions as socialist organizers should be settled at a low level – with the smart people on top running the campaign and the “masses” following orders. We want workers/voters to be educating themselves, learning in struggle, taking responsibility for their fates, becoming leaders. A notion of “mass politics” that begins and ends with GOTV is not that.

Drumming up the vote can be crucial, as we’ve seen in New York City DSA’s Zohran campaign (and kudos to them for their astounding success in thinking their campaign could succeed and then in working from zero to victory). It’s “mass” in the sense that you’re getting many people involved, but most people’s involvement is on the very lowest level of civic participation – voting. (OK, voting is higher than scrolling…) Voters are asked just to do the minimum, and then hope that the new mayor (or city councilor or Congressperson) can deliver.

The type of mass politics B&R proposes is focused on people learning how to do more than the minimum. We want people to learn that they can become leaders in their workplaces and neighborhoods. They can organize routine shows of defiance on the shop floor. They can organize a union where they work or form a caucus in their union and run on a platform of fighting the boss. Electeds can use their office to form activist groups of constituents who organize around issues, not just to support the politician. They can work on electoral campaigns in a way that energizes neighbors or co-workers (not just talking with strangers). The Zohran campaign’s recruitment of tens of thousands of volunteers is a good example of mass politics where people did more than the minimum. It’s good that a vehicle is being created to keep them active, Our Time NYC, though it’s concerning that they are explicitly told they are not “members”; they are to await their next marching orders.

We work for a vision of activism where engaged workers and residents see themselves as actors, not pawns.

Mass Politics as Class Struggle

It’s curious to imply that the Zohran campaign is the only meaningful campaign to come out of DSA.

The 2023 Strike Ready campaign initiated by DSA’s Labor Commission first got dozens of chapters to gear up for solidarity with UPS workers as they prepared for a potential strike. Chapters made relationships with Teamster locals and sent members to Teamsters’ “practice pickets.” That same infrastructure got far more use when the United Auto Workers struck the Big Three for six weeks in the fall. Chapters made relationships on the line, donated needed goods, cooked for barbecues – it was a big step forward in DSA’s stated commitment to closing the gap between workers’ organizations and socialist organization. Now, using the same Solidarity Captains structure, DSA chapters across the country are helping Starbucks workers in their strike for a contract, with the same kind of picketing and material aid.

These are examples of mass politics DSA can be proud of. And they involve class struggle with our class enemies, with no need to tone down our message to fit the needs of Kamala Harris.One thing DSA will have to do if we are to play a role in defeating Trumpism is to work with other organizations (and not just GOTV for their candidates). That was one bright spot of the convention: the Cross-Organizational Exchange, where representatives of more than 40 working-class and progressive organizations, from both the US and abroad, shared with the convention their own assessments of what’s needed in the political moment. It was a small step, oddly ignored by most convention assessors. But it brought together unions, the Movement for Black Lives, immigrant groups, tenant unions, international parties, and DSA for the first time. It was a step toward the kind of coalition-building that can foment a true mass politics.

---