There are two prominent arguments in favor of electoral activity in DSA: 1) we will slowly build a socialist society through reforms enacted by progressive politicians we endorse and 2) DSA will increase in size if we link recruitment to the ascendency of popular candidates.

The first idea, that socialism comes about through peaceful, incremental developments from within a capitalist society, is utopian. It is a tendency that has been dismantled time and again by Marxists throughout history. There are too many examples to give justice to the discourse here, but one of my favorite criticisms of this “insipid” tendency is by Rosa Luxemburg in Reform or Revolution:

Fourier’s scheme of changing, by means of a system of phalansteries, the water of all the seas into tasty lemonade was surely a fantastic idea. But Bernstein, proposing to change the sea of capitalist bitterness into a sea of socialist sweetness, by progressively pouring into it bottles of social reformist lemonade, presents an idea that is merely more insipid but no less fantastic. The production relations of capitalist society approach more and more the production relations of socialist society. But on the other hand, its political and juridical relations established between capitalist society and socialist society a steadily rising wall. This wall is not overthrown, but is on the contrary strengthened and consolidated by the development of social reforms and the course of democracy. Only the hammer blow of revolution, that is to day, the conquest of political power by the proletariat can break down this wall.

Obviously Marx and Engels criticized utopian socialism in the Communist Manifesto (although the exact utopian tendency addressed here is different than the current topic, there is still relevant application):

Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action; historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones; and the gradual, spontaneous class organisation of the proletariat to an organisation of society especially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans…they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

The reality of our political system is that state power has been completely entrenched by the capitalist class and is defended by a monstrous militarism. As Lenin wrote in State and Revolution, “once capital has gained possession of [a democratic republic], it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it.” Capitalism will adapt to reforms from within the political system, or it will violently thwart attempts to install actual socialism. One could only understand progressive reforms and/or an increase in socialist politicians as “winning” if one refused to understand the real nature of capitalism, specifically it’s ability to adapt.

Even if we believed their enacted reforms would improve material conditions temporarily, endorsing a presidential candidate is not an act of power — it is an act of conciliation. Several months ago, YDSA leader Sanjeev Rao criticized the inevitable call for a Sanders endorsement, pointing out the inherent weakness in petitioning to a candidate: