Thread by @DSACommunists

Santa Cruz DSA's campaign is dissected, along with Campaign for Proposition 10. The conclusion: elections have yet to prove themselves as an engine for socialist organizing.

newpol.org/issue_post/bey…

The essay argues on the basis of experience of Santa Cruz DSA. While some DSA caucuses call electoral organizing "class struggle elections," this is merely a rebrand. Looking at outcomes of electoral work, Cavooris and Mason argue that little has been built from the efforts.

They ask: what is the strategic thinking beyond the election itself (be it Bernie, or a measure like Proposition 10), and in what *specific* ways are these efforts empowering the class and our organizations?

Ultimately—& this is a hot take—they argue the belief that electoral politics bolsters working class power is idealist, and evades practical material questions of power. Here, elections are elevated on an argument that is about 'changing peoples minds.'

This question of material power is also taken up in another essay by @jstnglmr who shows that much of East Bay DSA's organizing (Prop 10, CA state assembly elections, etc) have yielded little post-election power, or even organizational activity.

newpol.org/lessons-from-t…

Here we again see an argument against the notion that elections are useful because they change hearts and minds. The propagandistic use of elections are extremely limited, since they are by definition ephemeral.

As opposed to strategies that are entirely premised on electoral politics, Mason and Cavooris argue that our task is to build material power. What can this look like? Contrasting Prop 10 and Measure M electoral efforts, they discuss the potential for building mass organizations:

In the end, Cavooris and Mason's essay is a warning: If we do not want "DSA becoming a “moveon. org ” for the Twitter generation" then we must critically assess the reliance on elections. Building socialism is not the same as making an email list of voters!