Most politicians who win office and identify as socialists place their politics – and, by extension, socialism – under the umbrella of progressivism. So do some of the rank and file members of socialist orgs. But many others point out that progressivism and socialism grew out of much different traditions. We notably see this division in the DSA, which includes lots and lots of younger, newer leftists.
Even though many people see the division, few acknowledge it. This lack of acknowledgment allows an unhealthy situation to develop. We see far more acrimonious debate and ill-will due to this situation than an org like DSA can sustain. Were the two sides to make their assumptions explicit, they could engage more productively with each other.
But all this leads to a natural question: are the DSA politicians (and their followers) correct? Is socialism just some stronger flavor of progressivism? Or is it something else?
I’ll argue in this post that socialism and ultra-progressivism are different. Socialism isn’t just a more extreme form of progressive views. But while I’ll spend some time showing the differences between socialism and ultra-progressivism, I’ll point out that the goal is to help discussions proceed without all this ill-will.
Ultra-Progressivism
I’ll clarify at the outset that I’m not using the term ‘ultra-progressivism’ to refer to a specific view or ideology. Rather, it picks out a politics that amounts to being ‘more progressive than the progressives.’ Ultra-progressives stay within progressivism while pushing it to – and beyond – its current limits.
How do these debates play out in the real world? Those with an ultra-progressive approach tend to build their views and activism around certain things. They tend to do things like: focus mostly on electoral politics, use Armageddon style rhetoric on climate change, and so on.
They also engage with politics in certain sorts of ways. And they make unrealistic demands of local government. And they engage with politicians in a highly moralistic sort of way.
Many of these areas – particularly climate change activism and local politics – tend to combine both of these things. That is to say, ultra-progressives both use a high level of technical vocabulary and engage in a moralistic, pugilistic style of doing politics.
Socialism
None of that is really how socialism works. Being a socialist isn’t a matter of taking progressive views to their strongest possible expression. It’s not ‘two minute abs’ or ‘if your Green New Deal proposal calls for $10 trillion, I’ll make mine call for $30 trillion.’ It’s not demanding $2,000 monthly checks during the pandemic, no matter the negative consequences.
But I want to be careful here. Liberals like Hillary Clinton criticize some on the left, notably the DSA and Bernie Sanders, for their ‘unrealistic’ ideas. In the case of liberals, this simply shows their lack of political imagination. Socialists criticize all this in a different way. It doesn’t advance the goals socialists pursue.
Socialism is about the democratic ownership and control of resources. Toward that end, socialist orgs want to build popular power. Socialists want to engage in class formation – to put working-class people together and build them into the group that takes and runs the economic, political, and social world.
Socialists and ultra-progressives agree on plenty of things. For just one example, both want inclusive policies for trans people. But socialists want trans inclusion in order to make sure the working class includes its trans members. And they want trans inclusion to build a broader coalition of marginalized people to fight back. So, it’s about building the working class. By contrast, progressives want trans inclusion because it fits into their moral vision for the world. The socialist version of all this can – and will – change the world. The progressive version rarely builds popular support. It often turns into niche or otherwise absurd moral demands, e.g., banning peanut butter from schools to satisfy overheated moral demands.
Socialism is More Successful than Ultra-Progressivism
Ultra-progressives often argue against socialists on pragmatic grounds. They say that they’re focused on more practical things like elections or near term demands. But this claim falls apart under scrutiny.
Positioning oneself as an ultra-progressive limits the appeal of one’s views to a small slice of people who already identify as ‘very liberal’ or ‘progressive.’ We can see this in any number of cases. But readers might consider the popularity of politicians who take an ‘ultra-progressive’ conception of ‘democratic socialism’ – AOC, et al. Readers might also consider the study Jacobin conducted among working class voters, which shows that voters respond more favorably to ‘social democratic’ politics than ‘ultra-progressive’ politics.
What this means is that even though socialists stand politically to the left of ultra-progressives, they can include a broader range of people. And so, a group like the DSA doesn’t need to ‘move to the right’ in order to win votes (as some in its more ultra-progressive elements – such as the Socialist Majority and Green New Deal caucuses – often suggest). That’s because it can pitch leftist ideas to a more inclusive, receptive, and effective bloc than ultra-progressives will ever be able to do.
Postscript: Are ultra-progressives just radlibs?
Readers might recall that I wrote a post some months ago on the political category ‘radlib.’ And they might recall how I defined the term ‘radlib’: A radlib is a person who uses radical or leftist language to defend non-radical, non-leftist ideas, usually ideas that don’t differ from ideas already found in US politics.
So, are those who take an ultra-progressive approach to politics – and still identify as ‘democratic socialists’ as a part of a movement like the DSA – just radlibs with DSA cards?
No. Or, at least, not quite. Some might be radlibs. But most of them really do try to offer some leftist ideas. And almost all of them hold to at least a few leftist ideas in principle, or as a longer term goal. But look at it like this. Kamala Harris’s Twitter “KHive” is clearly radlib, but clearly not ultra-progressive. AOC and most DSA members elected to federal office are ultra-progressives who usually don’t come off as radlibs.
So, I think they’re a (mostly) different group.
