We need more leaders, we need less stuff!

Everything written here is my opinion and does not represent the views of Cleveland DSA.

In 2023, for the first time in my adult life, an anti-war movement with clear strategy and demands inspired mass participation in the United States. Palestinian activists raised the stakes and demanded attention with deep organizing, education, and consistency at the national level that I had never seen. Locally, I was able to learn and observe trends as a frequent participant in high risk, direct action. I was also able to observe how a coalition gets built from the ground up. I must reflect on what I have done and seen in order to prepare for the long fight towards socialism and learn from the immense efforts of organizers who came before me.

“We keep us safe” is vague and lacks any actionable demand. What we need is an organization capable of keeping people safe by wielding collective, material power. To win the fight for socialism in the United States of America, the delegation of responsibility and power must be clear and consensual to everyone involved in the movement. Our movement must be transparent and accessible, so that power is noticed and discussed. Leadership in any context must be political because giving people what they want and need is inherently political. Now that we are in Trump’s second term, and the opposition tent is bigger than ever, socialist organizations do themselves no favors smoothing over differences with competing political projects. I’m not just talking about liberals, everyone needs to get with the program. From anarchists, to black nationalists, and progressive academics; we cannot simply wish ourselves into agreement and coordination, it must be an honest struggle. 

I used to believe that organizing would be so much easier if we could simply give people what they need without saying anything at all, without ever running the risk of alienation. I used to believe that what was “good” or “right” would spontaneously emerge out of individual goodwill, an intention to build a diverse community, coupled with academic or legal reason. Obviously it would be a shortcut to victory if we could manage society with a small group of good people. But the idea that the movement could be led by the people already involved in existing coalitions, was comforting, because that meant I had less work to do, and that most problems had been acknowledged. 

Because I believed this, I was frustrated by communists and socialists who struggled hard over the content of collective statements, questions of history and theory that inevitably lead to a delayed response to crises. Why must the statement be a collective effort? Why can’t the chair speak for everyone out of convenience? Why do we include so much nuance in our statements? Why don’t we put boots on the ground immediately? 

Through much frustration, I have started learning how to take personal responsibility for the collective will, work, and rhetoric of an organization, regardless of how it impacts my ability to wield personal power. More importantly, I learned that I could only be organizing if I convinced other people to do the same. 

Taking responsibility for the safety and material conditions of others is not a decision that should be taken lightly. As an organization’s capacity to meet needs, overcome status-quo authority, and manage society is increased, new members of the working class must feel compelled to participate in more and higher levels of civil service. The organization must naturally encourage this engagement because the more people who know how to wield power and balance contradictions, the greater is their capacity to contribute to the collective project. 

Additionally, my capacity for responsibility and service to an organization should not endow me with unchecked power or deference. “Doing the work” or politics dictated by volunteerism easily creeps into socialist organizations, despite most people knowing better at this point. It is worth repeating that the content of one’s ideas and arguments should lead in all exercises of power. Asking that people “do the work” before they are able to criticize anything is a harmful fallacy that has found its way into a lot of political discourse. While someone who engages with politics at high levels is important to retain, it is obvious many socialist organizations rely too strongly on too few people who are able to operate on the level of theory, creating a situation where only a few people always set the ground for debate. This inevitably leads to hidden fractures and contention in the organization. We must escape the paranoid tendency to never train new leaders, never criticize them, never discipline their political aspirations to the will of the organization. 

During our local student encampment for Palestine, I learned a lot about the ordinary person’s inexperience with exercising collective communication and decision making in large groups. I believe the lack of centralization in an organization and a deference to the concept of “collective responsibility,” created a leadership vacuum at the encampment that could have been anticipated. There was also a near constant urgency and tendency to focus on the management of “stuff” that drained energy even further. I believe these last two issues are easier to fix so I will address them first. 

Movements that benefit the capitalist project seemingly advance on their own thanks to an endless resource pool that includes the bodies and minds of poor and working people. In contrast, our movements for socialism do not have the privilege of coasting on endless, spontaneous momentum. So when the weather gets nice, and protests grow in size and scope, it is actually very predictable that the reproductive and administrative labor available to the spontaneous street takeovers will be insufficient to sustain them against the militarized police. Sure, we might have leaders named in the papers, but who is managing the need to call an assembly, administrate and communicate group decisions? Who is making sure people don’t get sick or hurt in the fight? Who is making sure those people are around? 

This work is often assigned the status of “everyone does this” and many assume it is done in some group chat they are not part of. Not everyone can call a general assembly, and not everyone will be listened to when they speak. The existence of group chats as decision making spaces also makes this lack of transparency and indecision additionally frustrating for participants. It does not inspire them to take larger risks for the cause. 

The lack of centralised authority created a few different kinds of chaos at the encampment. First, there was simply too much stuff. A collective decision to stop accepting donations would have avoided unnecessary labor and exhaustion for volunteers running the medic tent and food area. Additionally, there were routinely not enough participants willing to get arrested for the sake of the camp at any given time. This is probably because the capacity of the “high risk participants” was not managed appropriately. I was getting called back to the camp constantly every time rumors spread of a potential raid, I never got the chance to tap out. Again, a collective decision to throttle the urgency of the messaging could have extended the limited energy of those willing to take high risk actions.

In the first days of the encampment I was very impressed by the student organizers. These young activists quickly set up formal channels of communication, utilized their organic networks on campus, and brought in the greater community to spread the word about important decisions. The authority in the beginning was well-defined and worked to get everyone on the same page about what needed to happen. One of the ways this manifested was in a “camp basics” document circulated among many, that addressed matters of conduct and jail support. 

However, after the camp was established, it began to be run in an increasingly decentralized fashion. The student organizers naturally sought greater buy-in from the camp participants, but without a clear process for doing so. Gossip and constant threat of a raid contributed greatly to the “fog of war” felt by student leaders. Fear and incompatible schedules deterred regular leadership meetings. This fog never allowed for a moment to consider how to establish a general “camp” assembly, abide by the mandate of that assembly, or escalate as a response to police aggression. Every morning I would receive a telegram notification telling me it was urgent people return to the camp. I was bothered by the assumption that it wouldn’t always be the same people willing to haul out, and when I finally arrived there was no reason to have rushed at all.

When it came to matters of camp-keeping and reproductive labor, there was little enthusiasm about being the person who stepped into a leadership role. When I use the term “reproductive labor” what I am referring to is “activities of provisioning, care-giving and interaction that produce and maintain social bonds.” This is how Nancy Fraser describes social reproduction in the Contradictions of Capital and Care.  The most upsetting part was that too much food was being brought into the camp, and it was being left behind in the hope that it would get consumed by somebody. A lot of the food went bad. If the University refused to pick up the trash, and locked their bins, I’m not sure we would have been able to keep the camp sanitary for 10 days, especially when the police interfered with clean up efforts. I have work experience managing trash in public places. I know that when people gather in large groups, and live outside full time, it creates an abnormal amount of waste that requires actual labor and logistics to manage. Many people were willing and able to help with the food management and meals, but ultimately with limited leadership, weeding out bad food, resetting coolers, and setting/clearing the big meal exhausted most of the capacity for the day. There was no time to discuss food strategy or best practices, there was no mechanism to do so.

Despite the obvious need, there was a reluctance to take leadership or delegate, especially among people who had never exercised the skill before. Most people were worried about “overstepping” or taking away the individual agency of others who were also trying to help. Attempting to “catch a vibe” from a large group of people seemed to be the most comfortable thing to do if someone assumed a particular responsibility and had to motivate the task. No one wanted to tell other people what to do, so when work was accomplished, it was the result of individual initiative, not collective action.  

I am guilty of all of this, especially as days wore on and it felt like we were getting nowhere. Everyone was always waiting on someone else’s direction and that was exhausting. Of course, there is always going to be contradictory information fighting for air, but it was so obvious the student organizers let their own lack of consensus slip out into the whole camp. It wasn’t long before the camp was unable to speak with one voice, and camp participants were calling the police on counter-protestors. Student leaders had wisely announced a rule against that in the previously mentioned “camp basics” document. This useful and important document was never recirculated and was lost to time, buried in a group chat where so much of this organizing took place. By the end of the first week I was completely demoralized, and then shortly after the encampment ended without further escalation.  

This is no one’s fault. We are not taught the mechanics of collective decision making, and being overburdened with material support almost seems like a good problem to have. I stood in awe as I witnessed an entire church lobby filled to the brim with protest supplies several days after police, mounted on horses, assaulted Cleveland protest participants May 30 2020. There was so much stuff, I wish someone had told me not to bother driving out to drop off more. Saline solution, water, hundreds of sunscreen bottles, all accumulated for protests that had not even been planned yet. Unfortunately, the hard part isn’t finding people who will donate, but finding the administrative labor required to take the stuff where it needs to go and manage it. Mutual aid, and keeping people safe, is usually the first task of any street movement, so it is shocking how we still struggle so much with the basics.

The truth is, for a highly publicized injustice, it is actually very easy to ask for and receive large amounts of donations and supplies. There is genuine repressed enthusiasm from the alienated working class that comes out, often, in the form of donations. Almost always, the only thing the movement actually needs is momentum, bodies, and leaders. The alienated worker’s lack of time and freedom to participate in collective action is softened by the hope that there are other outlets through which they can participate and hopefully contribute. Resorting too quickly to donations and social media awareness campaigns might even alienate someone further from taking power in their own life because the movement did not win its demands, nothing changed, and the worker does not understand how any of it happened. The movement should, but often fails to, offer participation and genuine opportunity to lead, to its base that is not already committed to the cause. Learning to lead is how people buy into the greater project and stay committed for the long haul.  

Unfortunately, for the activists, work needed to maintain occupations, encampments, and riots cannot be done by paid staff. Outside of mass mobilizations like these, community care often does involve paid staff (nonprofit or otherwise) set out with the task of fulfilling a particular need that activists may be organizing around. For example, social workers will come out to support trans activists and self-organize professional support outside of any kind of movement infrastructure. The Cleveland Food Bank still feeds anyone regardless of marginalized status. When administration of “stuff” is done spontaneously, or when activist time is not effectively managed, unpaid activists duplicate the work of paid activists and waste their time relentlessly. I have seen this happen a number of times, but mainly as a response to COVID or environmental disasters like the East Palestine train derailment. 

It makes me sad and worried when I consider all the unpaid activist energy and capacity that has gone into establishing brand new mutual aid projects for every tragedy and issue-area. Often the service non-profits (donor/corporate/grant funded NGOs, yes, even small ones) and charity organizations are willing and capable of providing blankets, water, hot meals, clothes, bail, sometimes legal services, sometimes medical services, and basically any and all consumer goods to victims of tragedy and injustice. Often, it is someone’s literal job to raise money for direct support or to provide a service for free. Since the United States does not have a welfare system, these organizations (good/bad, religious/agnostic, government/non government) are the faulty, decentralized safety net that everyone is far too familiar with. Do people fall through the net, and are unable to get what they need to survive? Absolutely. Will we be able to catch them and support them without a complete restructuring of society and universal welfare programs? Probably not. Ultimately it is a political problem, not a problem of charity. 

Socialist organizations can and should do charity/mutual aid as a supplement to education and organizing. However, before beginning this work I believe it is necessary to acknowledge two limitations. First, aid and service are the bandaid we use to help who we can when it is not possible for mass mobilization/power shift on a particular issue. We always want to shift the levers of power, and eliminate the root cause of injustice. For example, we should not donate rent money to assist tenants if the tenants themselves can strike and negotiate a lower rent that they can actually afford.  Second, the impact of our work will be relatively small compared to the market forces that drive the disparity we are trying to resolve. There will always be more people we need to help than hands available to provide necessary one-on-one attention that every human being deserves. 

Too often, instead of confronting these limitations, DSA chapters and similar organizations will try to be everything to everyone. Routinely, the social movement wants to take on more than it is capable of handling, assuming responsibility for an entire issue-area, positioning itself as an alternative to traditional nonprofits/service providers, and doing so with a deeply misguided sense of urgency. They duplicate the work of organizations which are both increasingly failing to address the problems of capitalism, and which are far, far better positioned to address them than unpaid activists are. In doing so, they misunderstand that the purpose of political organization is to change the balance of power, and the purpose of progressive political organization is to win socialism. This “everything at once” approach sidelines leadership development and collective decision-making, all in order to “do the work” with the “proper” amount of commitment and on an accelerated timeline. Too often, committed activists are compelled to prove their moral integrity on every issue in order to present as properly intersectional and radical. Attempting to prove the moral integrity of an organization or individual is not a path towards justice, and it certainly isn’t the way to win socialism. Instead, we are tasked with the hard work of motivating ordinary people to our cause, slowly and deliberately. The people we need to win are not already running their own projects, and they are not toiling to maintain the decaying social safety net either.

Instead of starting a brand new mutual aid or service project, I believe it is better to keep logs of references and research to share, and provide aid to people who ask for it explicitly. As a socialist, I cannot be everything to everyone, but I can try to build a plan for someone who comes to me and asks for help. There are times when DSA, and myself by extension, have actually filled a gap in services that the NGO industrial complex had not accounted for. Cleveland DSA spent two years knocking on the doors of people facing eviction and encouraged them to go to their hearing, shared resources, and followed up afterwards. There were times when the notice did not come and I was telling someone for the first time that they were getting evicted.  Sometimes I drove tenants to their hearing. Sometimes I helped someone stay in their home, and sometimes there was nothing I could do. Regardless of the outcome, providing the door-knocking service was never my job, it was always something I did out of obligation to our organization’s priorities and goals. The eviction canvassing could only reach about 43% of all cases being filed in a year and it was very difficult to organize tenant unions while tenant leaders were in an active crisis. We were not moving toward our ultimate goal of building a city-wide tenants union, so the work had to be abandoned. In fact, a $20,000 grant was created by United Way to fill this gap in eviction-related outreach, and they offered it to DSA. When we denied the money, it was offered to another organization who hired two people to do the work part-time. There is nothing about this exchange of work that is wrong or morally compromised. The service work is being done by an employee paid for their time, and we don’t need to mobilize 20 volunteers on a biweekly basis. Our leaders of the project at the time explained how there was only so much of themselves they could extend to a service-based project, acknowledging it was never mutual aid because we could not get the tenants we canvassed to come out and knock doors for others after their eviction was over. 

If DSA can provide a necessary service to people in crisis and organize ordinary people into powerful leaders at the same time, I am so happy to do both. If I must pick one, then I must try to find some people who are not in active crisis or are not already self-selected, highly-involved activists. I need to find people with the free time to read, debate, and practice leadership in a collective body. I must be able to reproduce myself for the sake of having socialists to live another day.  I have trouble acknowledging the very real opposition many working class people feel towards the idea of a collective society. I have trouble acknowledging that our “mid size” DSA chapter has less yearly income, and moves less money per-year, than a single Ohioan making minimum wage. At the same time, it frees my ego when I consider how truly devastating the situation really is. Looking ahead, there is so much work that needs to be done. 

I believe the ease of our mass communications (through social media/ group chats) and easy access to material goods have made our movement lazier and less deliberate about what we say and what we think we need. We should not be naive, and understand when we receive “stuff” “attention” or “useful data” from capitalists and their institutions, it is a pity prize. 

During the tenth and final day of the Palestine encampment my nails were packed with dirt, several pounds of taco meat spilled in my car, I had bruising from handcuffs, and three parking tickets sat on my dash. I’m unemployed without any means to pay them. 

Looking in the mirror, I realized that the people I need to radicalize the most, were not going to be able to do this work. I was as self-selected as they come, and just telling someone to copy my imperfect time/resource sacrifice was not going to motivate or empower them to build power in their own life. If anything, the example I set was predicated on giving so much of myself, that there was no way I could be supporting someone else in their development as a leader. Solidarity is not self-sacrifice and it is wrong for a socialist to put themselves in this position. It is especially wrong to expect others to do the same. The people we need to lead the movement don’t already identify as activists and don’t have time to “prove themselves” through constant, selfless acts of charity and sacrifice. Ordinary people often stay the course on one long term project that directly affects their material conditions. Ordinary people bring others into the work instead of doing everything themselves, often this is a skill that needs to be taught and fostered in groups accustomed to individualist competition. 

If we are trying to build a mass movement, by teaching people how to exercise power and organize themselves, then we should only be engaging in single issues to the point that they radicalize new socialists and not beyond that. If the single-issue project is actually collective it will move itself, if it was always a couple people making every decision, it will fizzle out. As an activist, I do not have the capacity or strength to die on every hill. I don’t always need to be the thing standing in between a stranger and some horrible fate. The cycle of suffering is endless and expansive, but if everything is urgent then nothing is. Before it is too late, we must build a self-critical and leadership-heavy democratic organization that is able to hold the contradictions of the multiracial, American working class. And I don’t want these new socialists obsessed with the idea that more stuff in the hands of more people is the ultimate mission of mutual aid. It is important we do not assume that every participant is already a leader capable of driving strangers to action or subordinating themselves to the will of the collective body. Lastly, without formal organization at the core of our movement, the self-selected ones lose their way, giving too much of themselves and their collective capacity to an endless amount of work that will never be properly done.