Workers Deserve to Beat Fascism
In the fight of our lives, socialists shouldn't sit on the sidelines. Let's fight both the Right and the Center, and keep building worker power no matter the outcome.
By: Nate Knauf
Introduction
In a recent interview, Angela Davis called for a vote against Trump to "open space" for "those of us who are more radical than Kamala Harris to put anti-capitalist and anti-racist programs forward." Earlier this year, Adolph Reed Jr. reached a similar conclusion, elaborating in The Nation "Why I'm Voting for the Enemy." And Shawn Fain, heralded by many socialists as the rising leader of a resurgent, class-conscious labor movement and potential Presidential candidate for the left, took the stage at the DNC to urge a vote for Kamala Harris, proudly declaring "Donald Trump is a Scab" after filing unfair labor practice charges against him. So where does DSA fit into the picture?
Leaders of Bread & Roses have argued that DSA should largely ignore the presidential election, and instead promote socialist ideas with DSA's new program Workers Deserve More. While a more concise program is a positive and welcome development for the organization, it’s not groundbreaking, and we need to do more than sloganeer during this historic political crisis. The fight is over the question of who is going to control the federal government for the next four years, during a crucial period of political instability, and democratic socialists need an answer.
The question of the presidential election may be nuanced, but it's not impossible. DSA's debate centers on tension between two objectives: first, influencing whether the federal government is held by liberals or fascists, and second, coalescing disorganized left-wing voters around socialist politics. Different perspectives on the debate, i.e. encouraging tactical vs protest votes, largely reflect different assessments of the importance, costs, and benefits of either objective. Only an undogmatic understanding of the terrain facing us can equip socialists to walk the tightrope between isolation and co-optation, fight a two-front war, and win.
Groundwork and Socialist Majority have recently kicked off our new Socialism Beats Fascism campaign. Bread and Roses charges our approach with "liquidation," or of folding under the Democratic Party at the cost of disorganizing the working class as an independent force. But if socialists don't take up the struggle to fight the Right, then our base and our allies will have no option but to follow the Center's leadership. By holding back from the present struggle, B&R's approach of neutrality actually isolates DSA from the broader working-class forces that we need to organize to build a new party. The best way to create a powerful independent Left is by building our own political structures for the working class to leverage in the present fight against fascism. That's what Socialism Beats Fascism is all about.
The Political Terrain
"I’m not a member of any organized political party... I’m a Democrat." - Will Rogers
American politics is dominated by two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. These parties are categorically different from the membership-based political parties (socialist or not) of Europe or Latin America. The Democrats and Republicans are decentralized, multi-tendency coalitions, with porous and inconsistently defined party membership, political platforms that are entirely symbolic rather than binding, and shifty professional consultants and candidates who routinely swap sides based on whichever way the wind blows.
"We have in the United States no political institution in which members work out a program which is presented to the public and in which the elected officials of that institution then follow out the program and pass it into law. It doesn't exist" - Michael Harrington
Democratic socialists are not looking to splash a coat of red paint on the Democratic coalition as-is, nor is our ultimate goal persuading this or that liberal candidate to adopt our talking points or policies. We're interested in building a new kind of mass membership organization and socialist political force, rooted in the working class as it currently exists in the United States.
Battle of The Bases
To build a real socialist force in US politics, we need to unite the constituencies in society who align with our agenda: young people, renters, people of color, workers, union members, immigrants, and queer people. These target groups currently tend to support Democrats not by random chance, but because they are engaged in real political conflict with the most reactionary, right-wing constituencies who form the base of the Republican party: white evangelicals, retirees, small business owners, and, of course, the ultra-rich.
The presidential election is not a battle between "two sides of the same coin", or even one between two wings of capital. Although capital certainly dominates both parties through enormous capacity for political spending, US politics is a broader struggle that invites the vast majority of the public into the fray. Two-thirds of eligible adults voted in 2020: higher turnout than at any point in the past hundred years. The presidential election is the single most central terrain on which political conflict within the US is mediated, and that fact is readily apparent to every person, citizen or not. This election is the battle over white supremacy, misogyny, xenophobia, economic inequality, and many more facets of conflict between the social groups in either major party coalition.
So why do so many people vote? The federal government budget included $6.1 trillion in spending in 2024. The public sector makes up roughly 15% of the entire US workforce. Who holds the White House or Congress has a major impact on our lives from top-to-bottom, from schools to subways and disasters to drivers' licenses. Election outcomes matter.
The stakes of this presidential election are high. A Trump victory would be catastrophic for the working class, both at home and abroad. Project 2025 proposes banning abortion nationwide, a federal right-to-work law, mass deportations of immigrants, and sharp repression of the Left. Challenging the Right, as represented by the Republican Party under Trump’s neo-fascist leadership, is a top priority for the constituencies who we hope to win over to our vision of a democratic socialist society.
If socialists don't make our opposition to Trump abundantly clear, we risk isolating ourselves from our base. Some accelerationists have made the argument that if Trump wins, thousands of new members would leap to join DSA. But why would people politicized by a Trump victory join an organization that has taken no stance on and done nothing to oppose Trump’s rise to power? In 2016, DSA carried out a "Dump Trump" anti-GOP messaging campaign to advocate against Donald Trump's policies without endorsing Hillary. This orientation was tremendously successful, with DSA's membership exploding dramatically shortly after. Why not do it again?
Cognitive Dissonance
Unfortunately, we don't live in a real democracy. We don't have a multi-party election system and we don't have proportional representation. We don't even have one-person-one-vote, because the Senate distorts voting power by huge factors based on what region you live in. Because of the antidemocratic constitutional order of US society, we aren't able to launch a socialist party as a minority and start campaigning for socialism in a straightforward way. This obviously poses a big problem that has stumped thousands of American socialists for decades.
Fortunately, DSA has pioneered a solution in recent years. We've elected hundreds of socialists to office across the country. This wasn't by sheer force of will - if it were, perhaps the Green Party should have elected as many candidates decades ago. In fact, our success was the result of a novel strategy, in which socialists have run in Democratic primaries with the understanding that our members and supporters are intelligent enough to parse the differences between DSA candidates and corporate Democrats.
In the initial phase of this experiment, electoral-skeptic socialists dogmatically argued this wasn't possible. The general perspective of this camp was that running in Democratic primaries would make a candidate synonymous with the Democratic Party establishment in the eyes of voters, and amounts to an endorsement and capitulation to the party's politics. Therefore, they would argue, DSA should prioritize independent campaigns for office.
In the past 8 years, the "independent" strategy failed to gain traction or success. Meanwhile, DSA organizers across the country have hegemonically skewed towards running candidates under the Democratic ballot line, and DSA candidates have carved out their own political lanes as disruptive, dissenting "Democrats" in municipal, state and even federal politics. DSA members and voters alike have proven themselves capable of easily stomaching the contradiction of voting for an oppositional socialist "Democrat," and the benefits have surely outweighed the potential costs.
Surpassing Spoilers
Voting in the presidential election presents a similar contradiction at the ballot box. Leftists usually acknowledge that it's generally preferable for the Center to be in government rather than the Right. The US has a first-past-the-post electoral system which disincentivizes voting for minority candidates, who are commonly derided as "spoilers," because voting for a more preferable minority candidate can counterintuitively push your least preferred candidate to victory. At the ballot box this November, socialists in swing states and key races will find that the best way to block fascists from taking power is by "tactically" voting for centrist Democratic candidates. Similar to the issue of running DSA candidates on the Democratic ballot line, socialists are presented with a tension between our radical vision of a better kind of politics in the long term, and the urgent necessity of blocking fascists from taking power in the short term.
Socialists, especially organizers and activists, tend to be highly ideological people with deeply held convictions. Our comrades are passionate and determined; a necessary trait for those hacking away at an unjust society to fight for a better world, one which often seems far out of reach.
The typical voter, on the other hand, does not think of voting as the ultimate expression of moral character. Most voters find it to be a boring chore or civic responsibility. Instrumental tactical voting is ubiquitous among American voters, with a large majority (63%) of Biden's 2020 supporters indicating that their choice was more of a vote "against Trump" than it was for Biden himself. Beyond the presidential election, voters are presented every year with multiple elections and scores of candidates who they often know little to nothing about: in these races, it's common practice to vote based on relative preference rather than strong ideological affinity. And DSA's agenda (Medicare For All, the Green New Deal, a Permanent Ceasefire, and more) is overwhelmingly popular with Democratic voters who, lacking a credible left alternative in general elections, tend to vote blue no matter who.
So again, let's get real. The overwhelming majority of voters represented by DSA elected officials are Democratic voters intent on defeating Donald Trump and his hateful agenda. The vast majority of DSA members in swing states are going to vote for Kamala Harris in any scenario, and no NPC statement is capable of changing that. Even Rashida Tlaib, DSA's lone remaining nationally endorsed Congressperson and the single strongest advocate for Palestinian liberation in D.C., has embraced tactical voting against fascism.
"Over the next five weeks before Election Day, we need to defend anti-genocide candidates across the country and work to keep swing states like Michigan blue―including making sure Donald Trump never gets close to the White House again." - Rashida Tlaib
Our Votes Matter
In the Bread & Roses article, it's argued that "either a protest vote or a tactical vote is a reasonable choice given our miserable options," but that's not the full picture. In fact, dismissing the issue as a matter of personal preference obfuscates the different political circumstances faced by socialists in different parts of the country. The unfortunate reality is that our votes aren't equal, and where you vote matters just as much as, if not more than, who you vote for.
Let's consider voting for Jill Stein. 73% of Americans already know who she is, 23% have a favorable opinion of her, and she's currently polling below 1%. It's hard to argue she's floundering due to a lack of name recognition. The real problem is the "spoiler" effect, because the vast majority of Americans understand that they need to vote for one of the two major parties in order to impact the outcome. Americans have been voting in elections for literally hundreds of years, so the "spoiler" effect is ingrained in common sense so much that it's become a standard subject in high school history classes. And there are recent examples too: Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign under the Green Party banner made headlines for all the wrong reasons, when liberals accused the Greens of spoiling the election and throwing the Presidency from Al Gore to George W. Bush, blaming the left the disastrous consequences. For these reasons, supporting a third party is not just a "hard sell" for voters: it's counterproductive.
In this case, the thesis of Socialism Beats Fascism has more in common with our comrades in Reform & Revolution, who've argued for a tactical vote in swing states and a protest vote in safe states. Comrades in Groundwork, Socialist Majority and Reform & Revolution seem to all agree about the importance of blocking Trump by tactically voting against his candidacy in the few swing states whose electoral college votes will determine the outcome. The contrapositive is also true. In a safe Democratic or Republican state or district, tactical voting has essentially no impact on the electoral outcome and is therefore unnecessary. But even in "safe" states, there are still many competitive senate and congressional races which will determine the federal balance of power.
There's nothing harmful about casting a protest vote in a safe election where the outcome is essentially already determined. The main objection to the idea of endorsing a presidential protest campaign in safe states is primarily about the danger involved with effectively endorsing unserious campaigns, in which volunteer labor and grassroots contributions are ultimately wasted, and where the candidates are liable to issue ridiculous statements. With politics so nationalized in the US, it's also confusing to voters who tend to be unfamiliar with exactly which states or districts are the "swing" areas in question. And finally, voters just don't really like the third party options this year, so they pose little potential for bringing in the bases that we want.
This is complicated and muddy terrain which presents real difficulties for uniting the left. Just look at the past two presidential cycles, where the left was strengthened and united primarily through the presidential primary campaigns of Bernie Sanders. While presenting a clear, unequivocal answer on the presidential election is important for relating to the public through national politics, the most fruitful terrain for DSA and the broader left to cohere our base and build real political power remains with Democratic primaries and nonpartisan elections.
If we could choose our objective conditions, we'd opt for having Democratic primaries all the time, or, even better, multi-party elections with proportional representation, so that socialists could campaign against the Center and the Right at the same time in the same election. Unfortunately, that's not how our current election system works.
The US essentially has a two-round electoral system, which is similar to France, but with a much longer time period between the first and second rounds: the primary and general elections. Conflict between the Left and Center and within the Right is largely mediated through partisan primary elections, with general elections overwhelmingly being showdowns between Centrists and Rightists. Unlike France, the US Left is too weak to stand candidates on its own in most general elections. But even in a country like France where the Left can run competitive independent candidates nationwide, under the banner of the New Popular Front, the French Left also understands the importance of choosing their battles wisely.
In the second round of the 2024 elections, the NFP strategically withdrew candidates in a large number of contests to avoid being "spoilers" and instead tip the scales in favor of Macron's Centrist Ensemble coalition against Le Pen's Rightist National Rally. The strategy worked, and while the outcome has been a deadlocked parliament with no Left government, the fight between the Left and the Center can now take on a more central place in French politics than it could under a Rightist government. The US Left should take a similar approach.
What Do We Actually Do
"The front must now be directed against fascism. [...] March separately, but strike together!" - Leon Trotsky
The Socialism Beats Fascism perspective presented by Groundwork and Socialist Majority is a framework for building a powerful and independent socialist movement that fights against both the fascist right and the liberal center.
If we wanted to fold into the Democratic Party, we wouldn't be in DSA in the first place. The whole point of being in DSA is to build something different from what the liberal establishment has to offer. However, we need to differentiate between our objective and subjective conditions. At this moment, the Left and Center have a common interest in keeping the Right out of power. And the organized Left's relative power within in the fight against the Right isn't a matter of attitude or strategy, but an objective measure of the current reality. What we do control is how we in DSA and the Left go about navigating the fight against the Right in a way that positions us best for future fights against the Center.
The second this election is over, the 2025 election cycle will begin with municipal elections around the country, and the Left and Center will be at each other's throats. And if the Center controls the federal government, the Left will need to immediately jump into action to fight for federal action on a host of different issues, including the genocide in Palestine, climate change, the humanitarian crisis at the border, legalizing abortion and much, much more. So throughout the 2024 election, we need to keep the Left in independent formation in preparation for the fights to come, and that includes priming our base to struggle against the Center on November 6th and January 20th.
The Problematic Alternatives
That's why DSA should not endorse Kamala Harris in the way that the Working Families Party did. WFP correctly identifies the strategic importance of keeping Donald Trump out of the White House, and their voter contact program to elect progressive and leftist candidates while turning out the vote against Trump is commendable. However, adopting Kamala Harris as a candidate in the same way they endorse strongly aligned down ballot candidates sends a misleading message to working people which encourages false hope in the Harris administration, gives left-wing cover to her support for genocide, and directly ties the WFP brand to Centrist politics.
The best way to position the Left for fighting against a Harris administration in 2025 is by prioritizing turnout for existing Leftist candidates, many of which have contested elections this November at the municipal, state and federal level. The Harris campaign has raised a record-breaking billion dollars in contributions: they have plenty of funds to persuade moderate swing voters, and they're already working around the clock to trick working-class voters into thinking she's "brat." The Left should dedicate what little resources we have towards building up our own forces and supporting our own slates of candidates in preparation for future struggles between the Left and Center.
The problem with Bread & Roses' approach is that it seems allergic to criticizing Republicans without lengthy disclaimers that "We hate the Democrats too!" Some socialists find themselves so buried deep in struggle against the Center, that they forget the bigger picture. Democrats do talk non-stop about the need to defeat the Republicans, but just because we don't like the Democrats, it doesn't mean they're wrong. As internationalist comrades should understand, the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.
Socialism Beats Fascism
Instead, DSA should follow through on what our 2023 National Convention voted for: Defend Democracy through Political Independence, which acknowledged that a "significant current of workers vote primarily against Republicans, not for Democrats." Delegates debated and approved a plan to "immunize the working class against the extreme Right" and initiate "campaigns and ballot measures that defend and expand democracy and civil rights and shift working class consciousness to the disadvantage of the radical Right and Republican Party" in a "commitment to confronting the Right at the ballot in 2024." The democratic mandate is clear: DSA should raise the banner of socialism in clear opposition to fascism.
That's what Socialism Beats Fascism is all about. We're organizing panels and discussion events to talk about left strategy. We're phonebanking, textbanking, and canvassing to support socialist DSA candidates who'll be ready to jump into action with us against the Center once we're past November. Finally, we're organizing a broad network of Leftists and Democratic Socialists who are aligned on the urgency of fighting the Right.
Interested in Socialism Beats Fascism? Here's how you can get involved.
Workers deserve more than a pamphlet. Socialists have an obligation to the working class, to our comrades, and to ourselves to be ruthlessly effective in our organizing. To engage working people where they're at, we need to directly deal with US politics as they actually exist, and build a fighting organization with political relevance. Before the socialist left has majority support in federal elections, which is a long way away, we need to make decisive political interventions to cohere our base, align our class, and shift the balance of power in our favor.
Let's throw down to beat fascism. If we win, let's force Kamala to impose an arms embargo on Israel in her first 100 days. If we lose, let's give it everything we've got to stop Project 2025 and resist Trump's hateful, fascist agenda. No matter what, keep the red flag flying. Nobody's gonna hand you that socialist future. Fight for it!
