Case studies in political independence

In this two-part article David Friedman argues for movement-based independent political action, as a contribution to the Tempest Collective’s approach to building a new political party. Most articles on the subject, by Tempest and other socialist groups, emphasize the mistakes and dead-ends to be avoided, such as the dominant Democratic Party orientation of DSA, or “purely electoral” campaigns centered on the candidates and winning elections, rather than the movement and its struggles. This emphasis is natural, because of the dearth of recent positive examples, but it says little about the perennial question, “What is to be done?” It’s more like, “What is not to be done?”

Socialists advocating independent political action often think in terms of socialist campaigns, though none of the existing social movements or major trade unions have large socialist currents. That limits the possibilities, defers them to an indefinite future, and puts dampers on the kinds of independent politics that might be possible now or within the next several years.

This article discusses examples from  the author’s experience, primarily in the 1960s: Part one, in addition to framing the question generally, looks at a recent example from a DSA chapter, and, albeit briefly, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party of 1964. Part two of the article focuses on the California Peace and Freedom Party of 1968, and the PFP’s coalition with the Black Panther Party in 1968. 

The PFP section is an abridged version of a chapter of the author’s forthcoming book, working title: The New Left of the Sixties: Lessons for Today.

One of the keystones of Tempest’s analysis and strategy is political independence for the working class and our organizations. Our criticism of social democracy and the Democratic Party is clear and extensive. Much less clear is what kind of positive alternative we propose for the current period. While there are occasional articles that do present such a positive approach, in general this lack of clarity also applies to various other groups in the left wing of the socialist spectrum, including some left caucuses in DSA.

One example of a positive approach was stated by Kim Moody in his January 2026 article in New Politics:

“The Democratic Party is …. out-of-touch even with those who remain loyal, and the electoral system has opened new possibilities for independent or third-party candidates. It’s worth remembering that throughout the 1930s at the height of the New Deal, Wisconsin and Minnesota were primarily represented in the House by the “populist” Progressive Party and Farmer-Labor Party respectively—not by Democrats. Today, steps toward building local or state-level workers’ parties can be taken by running candidates where labor and social movements are most active and grassroots political organization is possible. Independent worker candidates may not win the first time out, but the converging conditions for independent class political action are favorable and it would be tragic for the left to miss the opportunity.”

Moody’s phrase, “class political action,” should not be misconstrued. There is class consciousness and there is socialist consciousness. The latter includes the former, but they are not the same. The former may be practical, instinctive, rooted in the daily class struggle, union activity, and other movements which are predominantly working class in composition. Socialist consciousness involves a framework for understanding the world beyond specific issues and struggles. During revolutionary or pre-revolutionary times the two may merge. In the present day United States, where only about ten percent of workers are unionized, there is not enough class consciousness, let alone socialist consciousness.

The exact form that such a party or its campaigns might take is less important and less predictable than the principles guiding such a formation. First, that they are independent of and opposed to both major parties. Second, that they are organized around the issues and struggles of the actual mass movements of the day. In short, a party that represents and is involved in movement activities, not simply an electoral machine

There are many forms that political independence can take, depending on the prevailing political conditions. I propose a flexible approach based on fundamental principles, not a single political or organizational model, formula or ideological litmus tests. What are the fundamentals?

1. As Marx commented, “Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programs.” It requires a deep assessment of the prevailing conditions to determine what would be a step of real movement in the U.S. today.
2. There is a grave need for an independent mass party that can serve as a public voice for the many distinct social movements in the United States that often share overlapping political concerns. There are many independent-minded individuals and small groupings in each movement who see the need for solidarity across the silos and are concerned about basic democratic rights.Yet the more prominent organizations and their leaders usually stick to their “lanes,” to the detriment of all. The reason is that strong expressions of solidarity with other movements would likely threaten and possibly incur the enmity of Democratic Party leaders and loyalists. This leads to a great deal of self-censorship. Some of it is careerism or ambition by organizational leaders, or the need to retain “the ear” of powerful politicians and office-holders, or even catering to the more backward members of their own movements or organizations.
3. If a new party is to represent (at least) the advanced elements of the several mass movements, it must be based on their main issues, not as a lowest common denominator or list of bullet points, but as a synthesis. It cannot presuppose an ideological basis, other than well-understood basic principles such as commitment to democracy, racial and gender equality, and economic justice. To insist on “socialism” as an ideological precondition or defining label, where there is no socialist mass base, virtually ensures that it will not achieve the size and scope that the crisis of our time demands.
4. When we speak of independent political action or a new party, we should not think exclusively or even primarily in terms of elections or “winning office,” especially in the earlier stages. Elections are not the only arena of struggle for a political party. A party that is a genuine political expression of a mass movement will be directly involved in all the struggles of that movement. We see this most clearly in countries that have no elections, or where elections are tightly controlled by the regimes.
5. The unfettered struggle for elementary democratic reforms is not ipso facto “reformist,” but can have a liberating and deeply educational effect. Sometimes that is the “next step of real movement” that Marx wrote of. It can reveal obstacles that are hidden behind politicians’ rhetoric and backroom deals, expand the horizons of the participants and the public, and lead beyond the original issues. Two examples from the 1960s illustrate the point: The Mississippi Freedom Democratic party (MFDP) was formed around the elementary right to vote for Black people in that benighted state. The California Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) was initiated over the dominant issues of racial justice and opposition to the Vietnam war.

Of course, readers of Tempest should also be aware that the Bolsheviks led the Russian revolution to victory in 1917 on a program summarized by the unifying slogan, “Peace, Land and Bread.” When people merely demonstrate for certain demands, they are pressing the ruling powers to implement those demands, which means that even if concessions are made, they are usually watered down and temporary. The next step is for a movement party, even in its infancy, to present itself – aspirationally – as a new national leadership proposing to implement its own demands in a meaningful and lasting manner, and to upend the domination of the established parties. This should never be confused with hubris, where a party simply claims to represent “the people,” while in fact only representing itself and its followers.

Most articles in socialist circles that touch on political independence seem to assume, as a kind of default, that these should involve socialist campaigns. I see this often in otherwise excellent articles. It can have value when nothing more is possible, but the massive turn toward authoritarianism in U.S. politics requires something larger and more powerful than the occasional socialist campaign in a few liberal municipalities.

In the remainder of this article, I will examine a narrowly-conceived proposal by a well-intentioned DSA chapter. In part two of the article, I will examine in depth the California Peace and Freedom Party of 1967-68.

In the interest of trying to maintain a reasonable length for this article, I will only mention a third major example, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) of 1963-64, in passing. The MFDP was a broad mass party of disenfranchised Black people. The greatest achievement of their heroic effort, under harsh and dangerous conditions, was to expose the hypocrisy of the national Democratic Party, which laid some of the foundation for the later period of Black struggle under the defining slogan of Black Power. There is a treasure trove of information about MFDP at the web site of the Civil Rights Movement Veterans.1Go to crmvet.org, select Search, and enter MFDP in the search box.

Caveat:  Examples from the 1960s can’t be stretched too far, because both the domestic and international situations have changed in many ways, but certain fundamentals about the United States’ two-party system and class struggle have not changed much at all.

DSA chapter resolution on socialist political action (January 2026)

This resolution by the Central Mass & Worcester chapter of DSA outlines in great detail how they should carry out political action.

This approach has value in DSA – an alternative to DSA’s purely electoral orientation as essentially a left-wing of the Democratic Party. The following paragraph from this article, written to promote the resolution, conveniently ties together the greatest strength and greatest weakness of the Central Mass & Worcester DSA resolution:

“For many years now, of course, DSA chapters engaged in electoral work have actually dedicated themselves in their practical activity almost exclusively to supporting candidates who have decided to run in Democratic Party primaries or registered Democrats running their campaigns with Democratic Party tech tools in nonpartisan races. We break from this “dirty stay” approach of “using existing [Democratic Party] apparatus without necessarily seeking to transform [realign] the Democratic Party… [and simultaneously] avoiding or at least not taking necessary steps to build a new socialist party.” Instead we put forward a different electoral approach set by our members that focuses on an electoral strategy and organization defined by the chapter itself rather than by candidates and their campaigns. It is therefore our intention to run our municipal and state legislative candidates in general elections as independents…

By running as independents, the group avoids publicly identifying their candidates and campaigns as representing the first steps toward building a real movement party. By declaring – in their literature – the goal as “a new socialist party,” the group bypasses the task of building a party of labor and the mass movements, which is further illustrated by their proposal to run socialist campaigns in their own name, as projects of their own tiny organization. The instinct to independence is healthy, but the focus is too narrow.

The organizational points emphasize that the candidates and platform are determined by the chapter — a set of rules for electoral action by the Worcester chapter itself. However, there is no indication that the ultimate goal is to lay the foundation for a new party, let alone a mass party on a scale beyond DSA or a single chapter of DSA.

“Our candidates …. will stand for election on socialist platforms that build on the chapter’s political program and that are developed and democratically approved by our membership….”

“We did not develop a general position on ballot lines and contented ourselves to clarify what they mean for the electoral work, municipal and state legislative, that is possible exclusively within the geographic jurisdiction of our chapter….”

“It is therefore our intention to run our municipal and state legislative candidates in general elections as independents….”

“We focus our campaigns on promoting socialism, DSA, and our chapter, rather than on winning seats….”

“[O]ur candidates must run as proud socialists and DSA members first, nominated by our chapter, running under a common brand, focused on organizing the working class, and distinct from left liberals who campaign only on reforms….”

“[W]e democratically develop a socialist platform for each elected body we intend to contest and then democratically select experienced members of our chapter to stand as representatives of that platform….”

The resolution reveals a preoccupation with the mechanics of political action, rather than the deeper purposes. They treat the question of running in Democratic primaries as a tactical matter, rather than fundamental opposition to that party and its entire electoral apparatus: “We did not develop a general position on ballot lines….”

That is not a perspective for how to get working people, students, and social movement activists in motion in a challenge to the two parties that represent the capitalist class. It is a narrow perspective for how to build DSA, specifically one chapter of DSA. The document couldn’t be more clear on that point.

Our chapter, our candidates, our campaigns, our program, our bylaws, our membership.

In all fairness, the Worcester resolution is about what one DSA chapter should do, not the entire Left or even DSA as a whole. Moreover, it is posed as a much-needed counterpoint to the approach of socialists in the Mamdani campaign. The emphasis on democratic processes is also important, but democracy within a small organization is a far cry from democracy within a mass movement.

In all unfairness, socialist strategies worthy of the name should not be about me, me, me and me. Socialists should be outward-oriented, toward strategies for labor and the mass movements, rather than narrow-focused on things that a handful of socialists might do to spread their message and proudly promote their small grouplets, in a country of 330 million people.

Among other things, this resolution shows that bandying about the words “socialism” and “independence” is no guarantee of political clarity or even independence in the sense of full-throated opposition to the Democratic Party. DSA as a whole and the Mamdani campaign illustrate that on a larger scale. There is often a gap between organizational independence and political independence, the best example being U.S. trade unions which are organizationally independent but almost always politically subservient to the Democratic Party.

The Worcester example  illustrates in exaggerated form some of the confused thinking among leftists about what political independence means in practice and as part of a real perspective.

Will independent, movement-based political campaigns be possible between now and 2028? Most of the potential mass base for such campaigns are terrified of a GOP victory in 2028, and will not be receptive. Even so, we should be clear-headed about potential next steps, since a perspective has to look beyond what is immediately possible, and beyond the 2028 election.

Read part two of this article here.

---

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Karl Wiener; modified by Tempest.