*The Test and Its Examiner* The August primaries and the report card genre
Anthony P. Teso-July 26-2026 *I.* The dispatch opens with a spectre and closes with an examination. Paul Garver, reporting the advance of the Democratic Socialists of America to a British readership, borrows the opening of the Manifesto for his lede and the idiom of the schoolroom for his close. [1] ( #_ftn1 ) Three Democratic primaries in the first half of August will show how deep the socialist challenge runs: Cori Bush against an AIPAC-backed incumbent in St. Louis, Abdul El-Sayed for the United States Senate in Michigan, Francesca Hong for governor of Wisconsin. Two wins out of three, we are told, and the prospects of the democratic socialist party are bright. I write before the returns are in, and deliberately so. Whatever happens in August, the results will be read as an answer. If Bush, El-Sayed, and Hong win, the mass politics caucuses will read a mandate for deeper entrenchment in the Democratic Party. If they lose, James Carville and Jaime Harrison will read the ceiling of socialist electability, and the expulsion of the left from the big tent will proceed with the returns as its warrant. Both readings accept the same premise: that a Democratic primary is an instrument capable of measuring the strength of socialism in the United States. It is the premise, not the prediction, that deserves examination. A test administered inside the candidate selection machinery of the Democratic Party measures one thing with precision: fitness for that machinery. Everything else it registers as noise. Garver’s dispatch deserves attention not because it is bad but because it is exemplary. It belongs to a genre: the sympathetic external progress report, written for readers abroad, narrating socialist advance in the passive voice of the election calendar. Victories arrive. Alarm bells sound. Races will be watched. Agency belongs to candidates and to panic; the organization appears chiefly as canvassing capacity attached to campaigns. The genre has a method, and the method has a politics. The dispatch draws the Labour parallel itself, and draws it correctly, at the level of triangulation and its decay. Since the Clinton and Blair era the center left has chased the mythical median voter while its traditional constituencies stopped voting, and the resulting vacuum is the space into which a forthright class politics can now step. All true. But the parallel carries a warning the genre cannot register. The last time a mass social democratic membership surged into an electoral vehicle it did not control, the vehicle’s permanent apparatus absorbed the shock, waited out the surge, and expelled it. The report card genre could not see that coming in Britain because the report card genre measures what the vehicle measures. It is measuring the same things now. *II.* Begin with what the apparatus actually produces. Garver reports that Melet Kiros’s June victory in Denver rested on some one hundred thousand door knocks and half a million phone contacts, much of the operation organized by a chapter far smaller than New York’s. This is a real organizational feat, and it would be sectarian foolishness to sneer at it. People who have cut turf, run a phonebank, and held a canvass launch in the rain have learned something, and what they have learned is not nothing. But the dispatch goes further. The canvassing operations, Garver writes, are “educating many participants and enriching DSA cadre ranks.” [2] ( #_ftn2 ) Here the genre performs its characteristic elision. Cadre is a relational term. One is a cadre of something: of an organization with a program, a discipline, and a strategic horizon that exceeds the current campaign. The canvass educates its participants in the technics of Democratic primary mobilization: the voter file, the turf cut, the script, the get-out-the-vote cascade. These are real skills and they are portable. The question is what they are portable to. An organization that forms its members through the Democratic primary calendar, measures its growth in primary margins, and celebrates its advance in the currency of primary wins is forming cadres of the primary. Whether it is forming cadres of socialism is exactly what cannot be settled by pointing at the door count. Hal Draper spent two decades insisting on this distinction. The alternative to the micro-sect, he argued, was never the existing reformist apparatus; it was a political center organized around a program, whose cadres are formed in struggles the program illuminates, and whose elected representatives, if it has any, answer to the center rather than the reverse. [3] ( #_ftn3 ) I have argued elsewhere that the 2026 congressional sweep poses the accountability question in its sharpest form, and I will not repeat the argument here. [4] ( #_ftn4 ) The narrower point is this: the dispatch treats cadre formation as an automatic byproduct of canvass volume. It is not a byproduct. It is the contested thing itself. The dispatch concedes the composition problem in a single paragraph and leaves it where it found it. DSA’s membership is young, degreed, and metropolitan, concentrated in health, education, information technology, and public service; recent immigrants are well represented among its elected officials, African Americans far less so in its ranks. For the genre this is a demographic blemish on an ascending curve. For a materialist it is the social base of the electoral turn itself. The milieus DSA organizes are the milieus in which the technics of primary mobilization are a native competence. This is not an accusation. Composition is a starting point and not a verdict, and the sneer about downwardly mobile graduates explains nothing. But a composition is a constraint on a strategy. An organization rooted in these strata can win primaries where these strata are dense, which is to say in exactly the districts it has been winning. Whether it can become the political expression of a class whose largest battalions it barely touches is a different question, and it is not answered by winning more of the same primaries. The dispatch’s own list of harder tests, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, concedes the point without stating it. *III.* Consider next what the program reveals when the enemy reads it aloud. Garver reports, with justified amusement, that Speaker Mike Johnson staged a hushed reading of a leaked and unfinished draft of the Workers Deserve More 2026 program on Instagram, itemizing its horrors: abolition of the Electoral College, ranked choice voting, limits on the power of billionaires to buy elections. The comedy is that Johnson’s followers discovered in his comment section how much they already agreed, and the organization’s communications staff now plans to convert the Speaker’s post into a recruitment funnel. The comedy deserves a second look. Note what the program’s enemies found legible in it. Not the wage floor. Not the strike. Not one demand that names capital as an antagonist. The planks that surfaced when hostile hands squeezed the document were the planks of procedural republicanism: election mechanics, campaign finance, the machinery of representation. These are defensible demands. They are also demands on which a MAGA Instagram commenter can find common ground, and that is the tell. A program whose most publicity-ready content locates consensus has not yet located an antagonism. I have made the longer argument elsewhere: the program’s threshold demands float free of any specified class antagonist, and a threshold in search of its antagonism will find, in the Democratic primary electorate, only a coalition. [5] ( #_ftn5 ) Johnson’s reading confirms the argument from an unexpected quarter. The enemy performed the extraction test, and what precipitated out was not socialism. *IV.* Now the map. The dispatch divides DSA’s internal life into two positions. On one side the mass politics caucuses, Groundwork and Socialist Majority, running the canvasses, winning the primaries, exploring a draft campaign to put Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the 2028 presidential field. On the other, ultra-left caucuses jeering from the margins, dreaming of a pristine communist party unstained by Democratic ballot lines, whose latest attempt to censure Ocasio-Cortez over Palestine fell flat. Between these two positions the dispatch recognizes nothing. The map misdescribes even the terrain it covers. Garver presents the national organization’s three month consultation on 2028 strategy as a welcome democratic advance. The consultation is in fact the residue of a fight the dispatch does not report. The 2025 convention’s Resolution 33 instructed the organization to build a left labor coalition to recruit and run a socialist for president. [6] ( #_ftn6 ) When the machinery it created met this July, the National Political Committee voted fourteen to thirteen to reject an all member poll on the presidential endorsement, parking the decision at the August 2027 convention. [7] ( #_ftn7 ) The co-chair of the New York City chapter, the organization’s largest and its largest funder, publicly accused the national leadership of overturning the convention and stripping members of their vote. [8] ( #_ftn8 ) Red Star published conditions under which an endorsement might be reconsidered; New York’s leadership moved to withdraw the endorsement request rather than see it conditioned. [9] ( #_ftn9 ) The genteel word consultation launders a knife fight over the only question that matters: whether the organization endorses candidates or candidates annex the organization. The map also misdescribes its own examples. The dispatch lists Brad Lander among the insurgent congressional candidates endorsed by the New York City DSA canvass. NYC-DSA did not endorse Lander. [10] ( #_ftn10 ) He was endorsed by Mamdani, ran on the Mamdani slate, and had in fact left DSA after three decades of membership, denouncing the chapter’s conduct after October 7. [11] ( #_ftn11 ) The error is small and it is not innocent; it is the genre’s method in miniature. The dispatch cannot distinguish the DSA from the Mamdani coalition because its criterion of advance, the primary win, does not distinguish them. Whatever wins a Democratic primary in New York in 2026 counts, for the genre, as the advance of democratic socialism. A category that cannot exclude Brad Lander is not a category. It is a mood. And the map erases a position. There is a critique of the mass politics line that owes nothing to the dream of the pristine party. It is the position Draper actually held: against the micro-sect and its purity, against the reformist apparatus and its power of absorption, for a political center organized around a program, accumulating forces in the movements and the unions, contesting elections when and only when it can do so under its own discipline and its own name. From this position the failed censure refutes nothing, because the question was never Ocasio-Cortez’s fervor and always her accountability, and a censure vote is not an accountability structure. It is what an organization reaches for when it has none. The fourteen to thirteen vote, the two million dollars in annual dues, the endorsement request withdrawn rather than conditioned: these are the vital signs of an organization whose elected officials have become its principals rather than its agents. The ultra-left caucuses did not create that condition, and their expulsion would not cure it. *V.* What would an actual test look like? Not a margin. A criterion. First: does the organization possess the capacity to instruct its elected officials, to discipline them, and in the limit to break with them publicly, at a cost it can bear and they cannot? The 2026 sweep multiplies the officials. It does not multiply the capacity. Every primary victory adds weight to the elected side of the scale. An organization that could not condition an endorsement in July will not condition a presidential campaign in 2028. Second: does the program name an antagonist? A threshold without an enemy is a petition. The August candidates will run, honorably, on the threshold. The test of the program is not whether it polls but whether it divides, and whether the division it draws runs along the line of class or along the line of the primary electorate. Third: who writes the exam? A Democratic primary is administered by the Democratic Party: its ballot access, its electorate, its calendar, its money, its media environment. To enter the examination room is to accept the examiner’s definition of passing. This is no argument for abstention; Draper was not an abstentionist and neither am I. It is an argument about what the grade can mean. Fitness for the machinery is a fact about the machinery. The consultation now underway is where the criterion will or will not be built. Resolution 33 imagined a left labor coalition recruiting a candidate; the process as it now runs is a candidate recruiting a coalition. A presidential endorsement conducted on the candidate’s timetable, under the candidate’s conditions, with the membership polled for enthusiasm rather than convened for decision, would complete the inversion: the political center as audience. That outcome is not fated. It is being fought over now, fourteen to thirteen, which is one reason the August report cards, whatever they say, will be beside the point. The organization’s decisive election this year is internal, and no one is canvassing for it. The returns will come in August and they will be loud. Bush may win or lose in St. Louis; El-Sayed holds a narrow polling lead in Michigan; Wisconsin is harder ground still. Every outcome will be read aloud as an answer, in Garver’s register by the friends of the project and in Carville’s by its enemies. The criterion will stay silent, because the criterion was never on the ballot. Whatever the margins, the organization that wakes on the morning after will have the same unbuilt accountability structures, the same program in search of its antagonism, the same fourteen to thirteen leadership, and the same choice it faced the morning before: become the political center of a class, or remain the canvassing auxiliary of a coalition. The primaries cannot make that choice. They can only postpone it, one election at a time, and call the postponement a test. Everyone will watch the grade. Nobody is asking who wrote the exam. [1] ( #_ftnref1 ) Paul Garver, “Democratic socialists further advance,” 21 July 2026. [Venue to confirm in accuracy pass; the Labour Party framing suggests Labour Hub.] [2] ( #_ftnref2 ) Garver, “Democratic socialists further advance.” [3] ( #_ftnref3 ) Hal Draper, “Toward a New Beginning: On Another Road. The Alternative to the Micro-Sect” (1971); Hal Draper, “Anatomy of the Micro-Sect” (1973). Both available at the Marxists Internet Archive. [4] ( #_ftnref4 ) Anthony P. Teso, “The Apparatus and Its Discipline.” [Publication details to supply.] [5] ( #_ftnref5 ) Anthony P. Teso, “A Threshold in Search of Its Antagonism.” [Publication details to supply.] [6] ( #_ftnref6 ) Democratic Socialists of America, 2025 National Convention, Resolution 33, “Unite Labor and the Left to Run a Socialist for President and Build the Party,” as described in “DSA Debates How to Debate AOC Presidential Endorsement,” City & State New York, July 2026. [7] ( #_ftnref7 ) “DSA Debates How to Debate AOC Presidential Endorsement,” City & State New York, July 2026. [Confirm meeting date and vote tally against primary sources in accuracy pass.] [8] ( #_ftnref8 ) Gustavo Gordillo, post on X, July 2026, as quoted in contemporaneous press accounts. [Locate the primary post in accuracy pass.] [9] ( #_ftnref9 ) Red Star Caucus, “Statement on the Controversy Surrounding the 2028 Presidential Endorsement Process,” July 2026, redstarcaucus.org. [10] ( #_ftnref10 ) “DSA-Backed Candidates Win Numerous NYC Races on Primary Night,” NY1, 24 June 2026; “Here Are the Democratic Socialist Candidates Facing Off Against Progressives in New York House Primaries,” The Hill, 23 June 2026. [11] ( #_ftnref11 ) “Lander Says He’s Not Endorsing Congressional Candidate with Whom He Put Out an Ad,” Jewish Insider, 10 June 2026. -- Tony -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#42659): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42659 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120458891/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
