“They don’t want victory. They don’t want power. They want to endlessly critique power.”1Contrapoints, “Envy” (2021).
Over the last year, the above quote from Contrapoints has become popular in social-democratic and electoralist circles, after it was turned into a meme by Max Dubler,2 Max Dubler. https://x.com/maxdubler/status/1763278751570489394 an employee of a liberal public policy advocacy group.3 California YIMBY, Our Team. https://cayimby.org/our-team/ In general the meme is employed by those who view electoral politics as the primary site of political struggle to sneer at people who disagree.The ongoing dramatic events since the re-election of Donald Trump in November have if anything reinforced it in their minds. The problem is we didn’t vote hard enough; next time, we have to vote even harder.
You can’t deny that on a certain level Contrapoints is right. The cult of beautiful loserdom on the left is unfortunately still present. The cult’s members love nothing more than shouting from the sidelines about how pure, uncompromising, and correct they are, while doing nothing to forward their goals. The losing is part of the appeal, in a way. Weak and resentful people relish defeat because it makes them feel superior to the evil world that crushes them. It’s Christian theology: suffer in this world, so you can be rewarded in the next. That way you’ll never have to get your hands dirty.
Still, something about this whole discourse feels off to me. I’m sick of losing, too. I want the left to have real power. So I find myself thinking about the sort of person who’s quoting Contra here – someone furiously berating people to go knock on doors for candidates and vote harder than they’ve ever voted before. Really? That’s power?
It sounds more to me like doing unpaid labor for capitalist bosses. Think about all of the door knocking, all of the phone banking, all of the calling – all for the benefit of candidates who’ll no sooner get elected than stop answering your calls and go implement somebody else’s desired policies. That does not look like real power to me. It’s servile. It doesn’t give you any leverage. The notion that this is the path to genuine control over what policy gets made is absurd – in fact, it’s some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard in my life.
But don’t worry – nowadays, some of our “power” theorists come armed with a material analysis. What about “class struggle elections,”4 Megan Svoboda, “What Are Class Struggle Elections?” The Call (July 16, 2019). a concept pushed by the hardline electoralist-Leninist faction of DSA in the pre-2020 time period? This strategy was supposed to turn electoral officials into spokespeople for “a class-struggle perspective, one that sees the working class as the agents of change and capitalists and capitalist politicians as the main barrier to change.” Yet several years later, we’ve seen some pretty dismal results. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, supposedly the standard bearer for this strategy, is wildly inconsistent: though she’s wobbled somewhat leftwards on both issues, in the recent past she’s repudiated DSA’s core interests, at various points defending Biden’s brutal policies towards undocumented migrants and refusing to vote definitively against arms for the genocidal Israeli regime. And we’re all still waiting for single-payer healthcare, a Democratic Party platform plank for many years. We are no closer to this policy being implemented now than we were a decade ago, before Bernie Sanders ran; just recently, it’s been common to hear DSA electoralist dweebs saying things like, “Maybe in ten more years.”
One might reasonably ask, then: what is power, really, in the political sense? I propose using the definition of political scientist Robert A. Dahl. He defined power as influence over the actions of others and argued that “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.”5 Robert A. Dahl, “The concept of power.” Behavioral Science, 2:3 (1957): pp. 201-215.
In light of Dahl’s definition, let us proceed to analyze the endgame that led up to President Joe Biden’s resignation as the 2024 Democratic candidate. This dramatic step – which Biden very much did not want to take – should be a helpful illustration of what it looks like to have leverage over politicians.
For most of 2024, online commenters had noticed that Biden seemed to be having some attention and presence issues. However, the majority of the Democratic-sympathetic media class ignored this, and Biden himself repeatedly refused to entertain thoughts of stepping aside. In a New York magazine article,6 Rachel Sugar, “An Anonymous Democratic Donor on Pressuring Biden to Step Down.” New York Magazine (July 31, 2024). one anonymous major donor claims to have thought after the debate that the effect of Biden’s performance was “catastrophic,” since “this [was] never going to work” and it was “impossible to raise money if you don’t know who the candidate will be.” They describe how “leading Democratic donors” like themselves thought that Biden would eventually step aside, or that the Congressional leadership would convince him to step aside.
Biden was clearly unwilling to. However, the donors only became more frustrated by the inaction of Biden and the Democratic leadership, so they moved to the next stage of exerting their power – that is, forcing Biden to do something he did not want to do. According to the anonymous donor, they told party leadership: “if you don’t do something about this, forget the presidential race — you cannot look to us to raise money for the Senate and House candidates.” Apparently the anonymous donor was not alone in their threats, as the donations to Senate and House candidates had “dried out,” and therefore the Democrats could not prevail in contested elections.
We all know what happened next: Biden stepped aside, and the Democrats coalesced around Vice President Kamala Harris. Therefore, under Dahl’s definition, it was the elite donors who had power in this equation, not Biden, since the elite donors were able to make him do something he did not want to do – resign as the putative nominee.
Contrary to the pseudo-materialist assertions of the DSA electoralist-Leninists, the only class struggle in elections is rich donors deciding who the candidates will be; almost everyone else is either on their payroll or (worse) working for free. In fact, the DSA’s approach was something worse than just an error: it was false consciousness. We’re out there making phone calls and knocking on doors while capitalists benefit from our unpaid labor. They’re letting us believe that if we don’t do this, we’ll die under a fascist government. It’s a slightly more subtle update of what now-disgraced music industry executive Sean Combs said in 2004 – “vote or die.”7 AP, “All aboard P. Diddy’s political party plane.” Today (October 26, 2004). And yet for all our effort, we get little or nothing in return.
A real class analysis of the electoral apparatus yields rather different answers to the electoralists’ wishful thinking. The professional election workers, the so-called “political operatives,” opinion columnists, policy analysts, and NGO staffers form a managerial class that disciplines the volunteer labor of activists on behalf of their capitalist bosses. Opinion columnists work for publications that are typically owned by capitalists, and policy analysts work for think tanks or lobbying organizations that generally support themselves with donations from the wealthy. Campaign consultants are paid from various sources, including campaign donations and ad buy placement commissions. As we learned from the New York interview, capitalist bosses will happily boycott the funding of a party’s candidates all the way down the ballot if they do not get what they want from one candidate. The mere threat of doing so is enough to cause a politician to cave. When has one of the left’s threats worked nearly as well?
In fact, as precisely this sort of counter-example, let’s consider the fate of the Uncommitted movement early last year. During February of 2024, in response to Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza,8 For the definitive account of Israel’s genocidal agenda in Palestine, see Mason Herson-Hord, “The Second Nakba and the Road to Genocide” (17 November 2023) in the magazine’s online section. –Eds. Palestinian American organizers in Michigan advocated for people to vote “uncommitted” in the state’s Democratic Party primary, in order to push Biden to “curtail US military aid to Israel and call for a permanent ceasefire.”9 Arit John and Dianne Gallagher, “Arab American Democrats push for ‘uncommitted’ vote in Michigan primary to send message to Biden about Gaza.” CNN (February 26, 2024). According to CNN, a poll taken around that time showed that 62% of Democrats “said that Israel’s military response…had gone ‘too far[.]”10Ibid.
Biden, as we know, refused to curtail weapon shipments or make meaningful efforts towards a permanent ceasefire. In August, the Democratic National Convention arrived in Chicago, and the Uncommitted movement leaders requested that a Palestinian American speak at the convention. When the Democratic Party leadership ignored these calls, the Uncommitted delegates staged a two-day sit-in outside the convention.11 Gregory Krieg, “‘Uncommitted’ leaders’ sit-in enters second day after Democrats deny their request for speaking slot at convention.” CNN (August 22, 2024). Representatives Cori Bush and Ilhan Omar visited the encampment outside the convention center to express their support, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also expressed support on social media.12 Ibid.
The request for a speaking slot represented a significant reduction in demands from just a few days before.13 Gregory Krieg, Dianne Gallagher, Arlette Saenz and Edward-Isaac Dovere, “Pro-Palestinian activists face complicated new decisions as Democrats gather to support a surging Kamala Harris.” CNN (August 18, 2024).
By the end of the sit-in, the Uncommitted organizers reduced their demand further, to just “a visit from [Vice President] Harris to bereaved Palestinian American families in Michigan.”14 Gregory Krieg, “‘Uncommitted’ leaders say group will not endorse Harris but warn against vote for Trump.” CNN (September 19, 2024). Harris did not visit the families, and the Uncommitted organizers refused to endorse Harris.15 Ibid.
The Uncommitted movement was more than just party elites: more than 100,000 Michigan Democrats voted uncommitted during the February 2024 primary.16 Abdelhalim Abdelrahman, “Repelling Arab American Voters.” Foreign Policy (August 21, 2024). This shows significant public support in a swing state. Harris ended up losing Michigan, along with just about every other swing state. Her refusal to throw the Uncommitted Movement even the meagerest bone may not have proved decisive, but it certainly didn’t help. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Democrats at large, as we’ve seen, believe Israeli forces have gone too far in their response to the October 7th attacks by Hamas. So what does it mean that, despite all this, the Uncommitted movement couldn’t even get the vice president to meet some distraught families – much less change the government’s policies in a significant way?
The contrast couldn’t be starker. When a network of rich Democratic donors wanted to force Biden to remove himself from the 2024 presidential race as a candidate, they did not stage a multi-day sit-in; they did not have major Democratic Party politicians urging them on in public statements (Democratic politicians of influence were reluctant to criticize Biden’s fitness publicly); and they did not create a grassroots campaign.
What they did have was money – lots of it. In the United States of 2024, money is power, and because donors like George Clooney17 George Clooney, “George Clooney: I love Joe Biden. But We Need a New Nominee.” New York Times (July 10, 2024). Clooney claimed that he co-hosted “the single largest fund-raiser supporting any Democratic candidate ever, for President Biden’s re-election.” According to reporting by Shawn McCreesh and Adam Nagourney, the Biden campaign claimed that the event raised over $28 million. “At Biden Fund-Raiser, Hollywood and Democrats Let the Trump Attacks Fly.” New York Times (June 16, 2024). and the anonymous person profiled in the New York article had lots of it, they had the power to force Biden to step down.
The Uncommitted movement, on the other hand, did not have much money, and that is why they had no power to even get Harris to meet with grieving families whose loved ones were blown apart by bombs provided by the US government to the genocidal Israeli security forces.
So one lesson is clear, then. If we on the left ever want to exercise significant power, we are going to need money – and lots of it. It is to this topic that we will now turn.
Imagine if the Dems’ leadership had received not just a demand for Biden to step aside, but also a demand from wealthy donors that the US cease weapons shipments to Israel. That would have been a very different negotiation altogether. But how would we raise this money in a way that doesn’t get people hurt, since this isn’t 1910s Russia or 1960s California? Well, there’s always the small dollar donors. But the electoral left has been trying that since 2016, and it is not working. What we need is meaningful autonomy from the NGO counterinsurgency complex18 See my previous article, “The Double Counterinsurgency.” Strange Matters, Web Only (May 16, 2024). https://strangematters.coop/the-double-counterinsurgency-gun-rights-popular-sovereignty/ and big capitalists alike.
What if instead, a representative of some significant donors had approached AOC before the Iron Dome vote.19 Rachel Janfaza, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explains why voting ‘present’ on bill to fund Israel’s Iron Dome moved her to tears.” CNN (September 24, 2021). Let’s get specific now and say that the person speaking in this hypothetical represented a well organized social movement that had previously donated substantial funds to AOC and her associated progressive candidates – enough funds that withholding them could present significant complications for their reelection campaigns.
The conversation might have gone something like this:
Social Movement Representative: Hi Alex, long time no see. I drew the short straw this time. I’ll keep it brief. Our members are furious that you’re even considering voting to keep supporting a genocide, and they’ve asked me to speak with you.
AOC: It’s a really complicated situation, with a lot of nuance and…
Social Movement Representative: Our members need a commitment from you that you won’t vote for this legislation.
AOC: <starts lecture about complexity and the moral arc of the universe>
Social Movement Representative: Yeah, we’re not trying to hear that. It’s pretty simple – if you vote for this we’re cutting off all funding to you and any candidate you support, any Democratic party candidate in New York State. That’s it.
AOC: I’ll think about it and…
Social Movement Representative: You do that. Now you know where the organization stands, and we know you’ll vote accordingly. I’m sure you’re busy, so I’ll show myself out.
Now that sounds like power to me. How could we ever get to the point where we might have such a conversation?
Big dollar ultrarich donors are out, because they will try to do what they usually do, which is turn charity into a vanity project and protect their own business interests. Ultimately, the money has to come from a source less aligned with the capitalists.
The main model of mass movement financial power in recent American history is the rise of the biggest unions. The CIO of the 1930s, for example, was able to flex its muscle partly due to the scale of its budget. When you have members in the millions, the fund from dues can be in the tens or even hundreds of millions.That’s the kind of cash that might make a politician drool or sweat. But this is exactly why after World War II the capitalist class took such great efforts to co-opt the biggest unions, installing their own people in the top leadership spots and eventually turning them into little more than a political machine churning out votes for the Democratic Party.
On the other hand, we know that there are significant numbers of disaffected DSAers making around $200,000 a year in their tech, finance, law, or consulting jobs. What if they pooled their money and used it as a seed fund for a federation of cooperative businesses? The intent would be to start in retail, app development, and services and work backwards up the supply chain into manufacturing and agriculture, with interlocking ownership and centered around core financial institutions. In other words, a socialist cooperative keiretsu. Such an organization could also finance housing buyouts so that tenants could buy and convert their buildings into cooperatives, for example. A socialist co-op keiretsu – a cooperative federation, if you will – could allow small retail organizations with bigger aspirations to become manufacturers. That was the trajectory, for example, of the Honda Motor Corporation: founder Honda Soichiro started off as a mechanic’s shop owner, moved into manufacturing engine parts, and eventually proceeded from there to the production of motor vehicles. A more current example would be firearms manufacturer Palmetto State Armory, which grew from a retail ammunition store into a producer of AR-type rifles and copies of the Glock pistol.20 For more on the background of PSA, see “Sit Down with the Owners of Palmetto State Armory and JJE Capital.” Youtube (May 2024). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laZ52hJws0c&t=1s. PSA’s original owner made the jump from retail store owner to manufacturer after receiving a cash infusion from JJE Capital.
A representative of a co-op federation would be free from the constraints of NGOs, which must stay in the good graces of the Democratic Party to keep the donations flowing.
Returning to the hypothetical call with AOC, there is another aspect here that strengthens such a federation’s hand: the possibility of post-political employment for her staffers. Washington, D.C. pays pretty poorly, even for full time congressional staffers with significant years of experience. When they want to make more money, most move to firms in the lobbying arena or to the lobbying arms of major donor corporations. An extensive federation would offer solid, stable post-political employment. Since congressional staff prepare briefing books and heavily influence their bosses, knowing that they might have stable employment with the federation after leaving public service would influence them to have a more favorable view of the federation and its demands.
Some might say that capitalists will always outspend us in Congress. In the short term, sure. But any co-op federation would start local, where politicians are much more easily influenced by smaller donations. Building upon early successes, it could become a national or even international force to be contended with.
Now, our friends in the electoralist camp might ridicule a cooperative federation and instead propose winning elections and establishing a benevolent social-democratic government. They will probably say that there are certain things one cannot do outside the state that nevertheless have to be accomplished in the short term. Well, perhaps. But even in such a situation, surely a socialist keiretsu or two would come in handy. After all, when this wonderful social-democratic government creates its green industrial policy or its job guarantee or its sovereign wealth fund, who will have the expertise to manage those programs? Podcast hosts who have never managed anything more than their clout? Professors with heads full of theories and zero experience in any industry besides the production of papers? Political consultants whose primary expertise is spinning the media and managing the door-knockers? Even if one wants to retain a social-democratic state as part of socialist strategy, it would be better to have it managed by people with experience in democratic institutions that are financial going concerns. The best place to recruit the technical cadres needed to administer a complex public sector economy would be the self-managing workers of an already existing collectivized private sector. And as we’ve seen with the politicians, a powerful federation would serve a disciplining function upon the state as well. It’s a separate pole of power from which social movements could cajole and harass the government into doing the right thing even when it doesn’t want to – just as, conversely, it’s a pool of well trained socialist personnel to help that government do the right thing even better.
Under ideal conditions, the assistance could run both ways. One thing that makes developing any kind of even remotely controversial business difficult is that cities and counties often use zoning laws to block efforts the powers that be disagree with. In any city, the zoning laws are enforced by some kind of planning and building department. Crucially, it is elected officials who often have oversight authority over zoning departments. In any government bureaucratic office, one of the things that people fear the most is when an elected official with oversight power opens an investigation into their operations, since it’s these elected officials who control the budgets. Therefore, a politician friendly to the co-op federation could be an effective ally in clearing out bureaucratic obstructionism: simply calling the zoning department, say, and asking about why one of the federation’s projects was mired in red tape, couldn’t things be going a little faster, etc. Though the federation’s socialists should be wary: such relationships should be engineered so the balance of power is more often than not on the co-op’s side, or they themselves will risk being co-opted (like the unions before them) into becoming little more than a get-out-the-vote machine for social democrats who deliver less and less with each year. We might also consider banning any worker-owner of the federation from running for office, and likewise ban former elected officials from becoming worker-owners, in order to filter out the electorally ambitious who would eventually try to use their charisma and position to discipline the federation to their electoral projects. Regardless, controlling the flow of cash seems key to maintaining the federation’s dominance over politicians.
Imagine the possibilities. A federation like this could simply decide to establish a co-op gender care clinic. When local conservatives try to block the clinic with zoning laws, years of strategic donations to key local politicians would certainly help smooth over any objections. And when they attack trans people’s access to medical care, a federation capable of directly providing the necessary services in its own clinics would radically reconfigure people’s sense of what kind of resistance is possible. Electoralists like to say that there are “no shortcuts,” which is true, but not in the way that they think. The real shortcut is believing that they will be able to seize the state through ceaseless electoral organizing, when real power is based on money. To paraphrase Tony Montana (and update him for the twenty-first century), first you get the money, then you get the power, and then you can become a woman (or a man!) if you want.
Some might say that the idea of using campaign donations to influence politicians is absurd. But this is just a numbers game. Ask yourself: how many times has a socialist been elected President of the United States? Zero times. Yet the electoralist dweebs in DSA threw all their resources at the Bernie campaign not once, but twice. On the other hand, ask yourself: how many times a politician has been bought by some company?
Answer that, and then tell me which plan is ludicrously ambitious.21 Long, long ago in a city far, far away, a group of DSA members wanted to build an autonomous business enterprise and were told that it was a “ludicrously ambitious” plan. ~
