Our Socialist Prince
An explanation of US political parties, and the pathway toward DSA's dirty break.
Written by Sylus S
Socialist debate over the nature of political parties in the United States continues to grow, both in volume and intensity.1 There is the infamous question of the ballot line, and a now wide ranging debate over whether or not political parties are even legal.2 In many ways this is part of a much broader theoretical question, dealing with the idea of a mass party, a party of a new type, etc. My concern in this article is more focused: To explain what political parties actually are and what they do, to ground this in the American context, and to clarify what this means for the work of DSA. In some sense we are already a party, but an embryo is not an adult, and thus we must uncover the road to maturity.
What Is a Party?
When we speak of the political parties, we are most often concerned with the legal idea of the party. That is to say, the series of financial regulations and paperwork registrations with the government. The most prominent of these details is the establishment of a ballot line label, to see that letter D or R next to a candidate’s name. There is also the idea of enforceable discipline, controlling who is or is not a member, who can run on such a ballot line. Ultimately though this boils down to the ability to direct resources and people, of which labels and their attached ideas are an integral part. That is where the real concept of the party, “an organized attempt to get control of the government.” starts to emerge.3
The real party is a hegemonic entity which articulates a political philosophy for society, a plan to seize or maintain power, and organizes towards such ends. Contained in such a vision is the promise of resolving material hardship, which ranges from bad wages to imperial occupations. It is the merger of these principles which then serves as the basis for hegemony, leadership over various sections of society. Such sections may range from civil society groups like unions to scattered collections of individuals like the average voter.4 These people and groups then serve as the fuel for a party, giving them resources like their time and money. The party may even produce intelligentsia in this manner, social organizers attempting to expand the party’s hegemony through activities like canvassing or democratizing unions.5
But to preserve this dynamic and achieve its goals, the party must, theoretically and practically, mediate between basic needs and higher politics. Wielding its hegemony to direct allied forces to one battle or another, progressively forging an army that can conquer power. At one moment this means throwing things at a campaign for universal healthcare, the next into election reform. If the former is forgotten then there is no reason for the masses to trust in socialism and socialists. If the latter is forgotten then there is little hope of actually achieving socialism in the end. But when they are well balanced, natural interdependence makes the party into a nexus in which various political elements are drawn together for this cooperative mediation of interests. A simple yet logical extension of the merger formula once it is already in proper motion.
Thus we arrive at the actual measure of a party’s existence, the concentration of hegemony, from which comes the strength to mediate and direct resources. In this sense American political parties are real, people and organizations feel ideologically attached to them, and look to them for political leadership. That is why when an election happens, so many registered party members and even independents suddenly begin to donate and rally for the party’s candidate. Based on this relationship they are often developed as intelligentsia, working to extend the leadership of Democrats or Republicans. This is a very fragile phenomenon as owed to the broader hollowness of bourgeois parties presiding over a failed neoliberal regime, thus the army of organizers will evaporate after the election, but still it exists when called upon! People still commit themselves to the projects that party leaders ask them to!
Autonomous Hegemony
It would however be a serious error to deny that America’s party system offers a plethora of peculiarities for us to consider. The primary system ensures that the party’s nomination will be determined by all registered party members in that particular constituency. But control over membership varies by state, and there is a great deal of uncertainty about the extent to which a party can manage its membership at all. To top it all off, the actual possession and management of resources like cash are just as likely to be in the hands of an individual candidate instead of the party itself; one may recall the drama over Harris’ unique access to Biden’s presidential campaign funds.
American political parties are obviously much weaker for these lack of legal privileges and disciplinary powers. Thus our parties grasp their powers of mediation purely through necessary interdependence and various forms of inertia. The consequence of this weakness is the fragmentation, and often personalization, of the party’s essential roles. As within a given party, there are many autonomous centers of hegemony whose competition regularly reveals the fragmented nature of the party’s power to mediate. In this regard, it might be more correct to say that we have dozens or even hundreds of parties.
That may sound exaggeratory, or even contradictory given I have said that the Democratic and Republican parties are real parties. But the truth of this is made clear in following the epic of Zohran’s campaign. By its very nature, the primary process requires that a campaign construct itself as a hegemonic entity capable of attracting the ‘resources’ of civil society necessary to win. The same effort was undertaken by Andrew Cuomo, and Eric Adams before both of them. That the Democratic Party is real is made evident by the fact that so many older black voters, looking to the party and its letter on the ballot for leadership in political struggle, turned toward Zohran for the general election.
But in the same election, this real hegemonic entity was also revealed to be so fragmented that there was no truly dominant force to be found in the party itself. Zohran’s campaign, though definitively reinforced by his nomination, had to do the work of assembling the autonomous entities within the party for the purpose of making that “organized attempt to get control of government.” As we know from our experience in Nevada, this assembly is more driven by outreach to unions, community orgs, and politicians closely tied to the ‘formal’ party.6 That is not to say the Bronx Democratic Party is nothing, but its weight comes just as much from people like Jamaal Bailey.7 Bailey, like Zohran, brings ‘resources’ through the hegemony of his own campaigns, and it is in these sorts of dynamics that moderate black voters came to Zohran.
These dynamics are simply bizarre; too cohesively connected to resemble electoral coalitions, and yet too dispersed to resemble how any European party organizes members or broader civil society for their campaigns. It is such autonomy which permitted Cuomo to run on his own ballot line whilst being able to take with him some notable chunk of the hegemonic relationships and ‘resources’ which ought’ve been firmly tied to the party organs. Given the ‘real’ nature of the Democratic Party, he could not arrange for too much in direct endorsements to accomplish this. But the neutrality of men like Schumer, or bodies like the Queens Democratic Party, revealed how seamless it is for the relationships formally organized under the banner of the Democratic Party to detach themselves from those structures based on the attraction of hegemons like Cuomo’s campaign.
It must be understood though that not every autonomous hegemon is their own party, the “organized attempt” is to “get control of government” after all. An electoral campaign or a movement of some sort is thus capable of constituting itself as either a ‘simple’ autonomous hegemon within a party, or as its own party. By contrast, labor unions in the United States virtually never constitute themselves as anything more than such an object in the gravity of a political party. One needs both a concentration of hegemony, and the attempt to control government. The fulfillment of these criteria are in extraordinary variance in America.
Contingency and variance are the key details, the ‘development’ of parties, the degree to which they ‘exist’ or are ‘independent’ is in a state of constant flux based on the two criteria. For instance, there are cases where unions rally together and act in a manner which is party-like, the IWW’s campaign for One Big Union being an excellent example of this.8 But, much like the present IWW, there are cases where the concentration of hegemony needed to mediate is so weak as to make this “organized attempt” effectively irrelevant. The ballot line is a powerful variable in this, but only one such variable in the end. Thus it would be foolish to view the pursuit of our own ballot line as an immediate necessity for being a party, or as a totally irrelevant factor.
Pyramid Structures & Electoral Blanquism
As ought to go without saying, bigger races require more resources, and thus a more developed political party. So in practice one must generally start in a relatively localized race, and build through similar small races. In developing greater hegemony over civil society, as well as the technical skills involved in campaigns, bigger races become possible. The federal system imposes itself on these party dynamics, tending to organize the relationships and influence of autonomous hegemons around such legal divisions. Thus as I have explained elsewhere, there is often a pyramid shape to these things.9
One could speak of these pyramidal relations in a vague way, or a legalistic federal way, but that is not really how American parties are. Recall the discussion of the Bronx Democratic Party contra Bailey, so much of the party functions are invested in politicians themselves. In 2016, Bernie and Trump were at times flirting with being their own political parties. Negotiating with bodies of civil society on their own terms, rather than those of the DNC or RNC. If their flirtations with governing absent the ‘establishment’ had been more serious, we might say they were indeed individual political parties.
Outside the office of the presidency however, the immense powers of which enhance all problems of personalism, one politician cannot quite be their own political party. Small or even large groups are much more common, and at times a group or tightly knit coalition of them may reach an apogee in which they come to dominate formal party organs. This is the goal which most often seems to be ultimately pursued, a function of there being something ‘real’ about our two major parties.10 The result is constant conspiracies of what one comrade from D.C. aptly called Electoral Blanquists. Our politicians often imagine they are going to enact their desired social transformation, or preservation, by constructing conspiracies of other politicians to seize various government roles.
The Squad, like virtually all politicians, expect that a mass party can be substituted with themselves as the hegemonic nexus in which to cohesively manage disparate social movements, unions, NGOs, etc. To reinforce this, they coordinate with each other as representatives of comparable constituencies, horizontal partners, to protect their own seats. Moreover, they aim to instill valuable vertical support blocks under them, such as state legislative seats within their broader districts, as AOC endeavored with Jonathan Soto.11 In this manner they develop their ‘party’, and in this regard there is a fragment of insight which we must adopt.
Soto’s case is a particularly helpful example, given it illuminates both the general and particular nature of this. Generally, it illustrates that since the network of hegemony and resources needed for AOC to represent her congressional district involves AD-82, her endorsement could be leveraged to transfer such relationships to a candidate for the seat. Should Soto have succeeded in winning it, the mutual reinforcement of these ties would have then provided a stronger political position for AOC. Because the assemblyman Soto would, tied to AOC and within the bounds of her broader district, make this same transfer through endorsement.12 The efficient development of any party from square one best follows this pyramidal logic. The particular Electoral Blanquist detail though, which we must not forget, is that this example of party-like relations emerges in the context of AOC’s relationship to her former staffer.
One can hardly blame the Squad or any other politicians for succumbing to this error. They can observe, as I have outlined, those powerful forces of mediation which at times emerge in close connection to these ‘real’ parties. It is also all too tempting to imagine, because their theory of change is so based in such systems, that this could permit them a legislative majority without a public one. Absent the strong efforts of a force like DSA, even then it is no sure thing right now, there is really no reason for any politician not to quickly succumb to this strategy of Electoral Blanquism.
In any case though, their Blanquism is not a roadmap to socialism. Not in its proper definition, to be sure. Nor can it give the full realization of the Sanderista’s radical social democracy. Because such groups of individuals, even one including a theoretical two term President, lack the longevity to oversee that project. Because even should they begin succeeding, their attachment to the masses is wholly dependent upon crisis and response. Thus for all its merits, the Fighting Oligarchy tour was not going to transform people into politically conscious organizers who believe in their historic mission and ability to end domination and exploitation. For that we will need a mass party.
Struggling for the New World
DSA is a party, a hegemonic entity which strives to seize power for the working class. Like all American parties, we are weak, struggling to establish something durable outside special circumstances, something which is controlled by the masses rather than politicians. Our party is also an immature one, the reach and gravity of our hegemony must be further developed. Nonetheless, I believe the resolution of these first two problems may be found in attending to the work of building DSA’s hegemony. So whilst it may be of value to speak more specifically on problems like discipline at a later date, for now, the critical question is how our embryo becomes a proper person.
We will always be limited by the ebb-and-flow of social crises, and there will continue to be points of tension with independently minded politicians. But imagine a big enough mass of workers who believe in the historic struggle for a better world, in their ability as both individuals and a collective to shape humanity’s destiny; such a force will always be ready to do great work when a crisis presents itself. Just as importantly, these comrades will increasingly look to each other for leadership and ideas. The politics of subordination practiced by hierarchical sects and Electoral Blanquists? Discarded in favor of self emancipation, birthing organic intellectuals which are of and for the working class.
At the heart of developing such a mindset of working class protagonism is our democracy. The daily experience of the worker is that of servile direction, for every rejection of workplace dictatorship is met with the reminder of capital’s potential for ruthless discipline. But through debate, through the active work of making a decision by members, they observe the value of everyday working people’s ideas. Through their joint action in a campaign, from laying the foundations to the moment of victory, they discover both the power of collective action and its merits in principle.
As our comrades organizing workers and tenants often see, people will not swiftly renounce self governance once they have experienced it. Nor is it an experience isolated to professional activists, or even to those who regularly attend every meeting. It reaches to the busy student, who can only find the time to hand out a few flyers on the picket line. It includes the tired mom, whose childcare ensures she can only attend a few meetings virtually. The development of working class intelligentsia, nothing like a sect’s version of professional revolutionaries, is beautifully ordinary and accessible.
The question which follows is the question of development itself: How do we initially bring workers into our democratic processes? As I have said before, the basis of hegemony is a merger of our political philosophy with the daily struggles of the workers movement. In order to spread this, we must go forth and build relations with the social spaces constituting civil society. The most simple form in which we do this is agitating at rallies, tabling events, etc. In addition, crises may cause various sections of the working class to be spontaneously attracted to anyone offering such a message.
But the most essential work for “bringing workers in” lies in the alteration of civil society, which we may most immediately accomplish through base building. That is the significance of establishing a tenant union or democratizing a labor union. Participation in such structures, much like in DSA itself, offers logical insights about the world which lend themselves to socialist politics. But our involvement in this process also means the development of a connection to both the body and its members, it is a sliver of proof by which to build trust. Trust that DSA’s politics make sense, and that we will never waver in our commitment to fighting for them. With that trust we solidify our hegemony, and even gain the opportunity to recruit those we lead into our growing party.
The first connection to civil society may then grow into a whole local network. At last we begin to see what I spoke of initially, the merger formula in motion. One can then begin to speak of mediation, starting with a local campaign. That could mean more base building like the establishment of a new union, or something electoral like a bid for municipal office. Whichever the case may be in a given moment, we ultimately require the synthesis of both. Base building must build the connections for electoral work, and electoral work must make it easier to alter civil society as I have explained elsewhere.13
Exceptional events may offer us exceptional opportunities, but well, I have said exceptional have I not? Generally we cannot expect to leap from local activities to the national, from council bids to the presidency. Instead we must use those local developments as the basis for connected regional ones, that glimmer of tactical insight provided to us by the Electoral Blanquists. Eventually that web of hegemony may even come to encompass a whole state, permitting DSA to fight and win a ballot amendment to end right to work laws, or to call for a state constitutional convention.
This is the patient work ahead of us to develop a party. Continuing to develop a promising political line, and building real connections to it through the synthesis of base building and electoral work. With the merger in motion, we shall begin to mediate in progressively greater battles from which comes a progressively grander army of the working class. In this march we shall inevitably need to fight for election reform so as to establish our own ballot line. But this is not when our party will be born, our party is already alive! Our purpose now is to grow it into the hegemonic vanguard of socialism.
If you’re interested in writing pieces for the Rose Garden, participating in reading discussions, and/or chatting with like-minded folks, make sure to join DSA and fill out the Rose Garden interest form!
Michael Kinnucan, “Political Parties Are Illegal in the US”, J.W. Mason, 2025, https://jwmason.org/slackwire/political-parties-are-illegal-in-the-united-states/
Elmer Schattschneider, Party Government, (New York: Routledge, 2004,) p. LIX
Sylus S, “Gramsci Primer & Modern Reflections,” The Rose Garden, 2025, https://rosegardendsa.substack.com/p/gramsci-primer-and-modern-reflections, Further notes on this may be found in section one, “ABCs of Gramsci.”
The matter of intelligentsia must be dealt with in full at a later date, as it is of great importance. Though some further remarks may be found in the Gramsci Primer’s subsection on them.
Las Vegas Democratic Socialists of America, “LVDSA Statement on Nevada State Democratic Party Election,” LVDSA.org, 2023
To note, Bailey is both chair of the Bronx Democratic Party and an incumbent state senator.
Larry Peterson, “The One Big Union In International Perspective: Revolutionary Industrial Unionism, 1900–1925.” In Work, Community, and Power: The Experience of Labor in Europe and America, 1900-1925, edited by James E. Cronin and Carmen Sirianni, 49–87. Temple University Press, 1983.
Sylus S, “The Climb to Power,” The Rose Garden, 2025, https://rosegardendsa.substack.com/p/the-climb-to-power,
One way is vertically, such as between a congressional district and the state or local offices within it. The other way is horizontally, such as between two congresspeople within a given state. In these relationships, we see that various forms of resource exchanges are enabled by obtaining hegemony. Thus, each layer of the pyramid is upheld by several blocks below it, and those directly below any individual section are intimately connected.
One could almost say based on this, to play on the old formula regarding the state, that the formal organs are simply a committee for the self-organization of elected politicians which feel attached to it.
Peter Sterne, “AOC endorses former campaign staffer Jonathan Soto,” City & State New York, 2024, https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2024/05/aoc-endorses-former-campaign-staffer-jonathan-soto/396818/
Sylus S, “The Climb to Power,” refer to the last section entitled “Pyramid Electoralism”
Sylus S, “Gramsci Primer,” further notes may be found in section three, “Political Warfare.” Though really it is a key point of almost everything I have written.
just laying down some of my thoughts here.
this web of hegemony concept is extremely sound and helps me wrap my head around what an “actual” dsa party can/ will look like. it will be formed through more than just electeds, though that is important. it is winning over aspects of civil society, from labor and tenant unions, to student groups, to winning endorsements from non-dsa groups. it’s a palpable and powerful strategy, but does little to address my glaring concern about the direction of our organization.
i’ve become disenchanted with the political strategy. the ghost of the second international has haunted me for a while now. i feel that even in the best of circumstances, when power is won and DSA socialists can enter office from the lowest levels up, the bones of this cursed nation will stay in tact. i believe that this strategy will put us in the halls of power, but it does nothing to address the rot in the dna of those spaces. this is yet another reason that dsa struggles to get support in minority communities.
in this piece, black people are resigned to the position of followers, supporting whoever has the power and says they will fight for us. my people’s agency deserves more recognition than that. it is true that we have historically voted for the democrats en masse, but that incremental progress has led to our continued mass incarceration, police killing, labor exploitation, and so many other horrors. it is not enough anymore. and DSA feels to me, especially with this program so beautiful explained here, like a similar fox to the democratic party.
and i say fox because, like malcom x said, it slyly fights for our needs while serving an entirely different project. our agency is taken for granted and used to fuel a project that throws us crumbs while cementing power around the party apparatus and the police and themselves.
i speak from the heart here, as a 3-year dsa member. you will see success with this project, but you will, and i mean this with certainty, leave millions of people behind and reflect the institutions we claim to be against. you are inheriting a cursed crown. we don’t need princes, we need a new system with us truly in the drivers seat, not a better version of the system that has oppressed us, a new coat of paint on the same death machine.
so… yeah i guess that’s my take. dsa has lost a lot of members from others coming to this same realization. i don’t see any change coming to this state of affairs. we need a revolution.