This article was written by a member of Metro DC DSA. Opinions expressed here do not reflect the views or opinion of the chapter, but reflects commentary from an individual writer.
BEING A SOCIALIST IN THE US is being in a constant state of internal moral conflict. We joined this movement because we saw the injustice and inequity of capitalism and wanted to do something about it. The rage that we feel when our friends and family suffer because they can’t afford to live or when we witness the horrors of imperialism drives us to speak up and speak up loudly. Yet when we do, society itself will push back. Jobs have been lost for speaking up for Palestine, family members have been cut off over disagreements about Trump’s presidency, and bubbling under the surface of American society are the smoldering remnants of the red scare, ready to reignite and push our movement underground once again.
Thus we are put into a tough position of choosing when to be loud, where those messages land, who they are said to, and how we phrase them. It requires tremendous messaging discipline and with tens of thousands of members in DSA, it’s easy for there to be some folks who get carried away. The current stage of organization is one of building capacity, power, and influence and our enemies relish in the opportunity to paint us as violent radicals. It gives them the chance to crack our solidarity with one another and build a wall between us and the public. Nowhere is this more prevalent than on X/Twitter.
On May 27th, a newly founded Marxist-Leninist-Maoist caucus in DSA, the Liberation Caucus, reposted on X a graphic with a statement from the account Unity of Fields in regards to the DC shooting of two Israeli Embassy Staffers. The statement, linked here, says many things but the part shared by the Liberation Caucus reads:
“The Palestinian Struggle is the tip of the spear against global imperialism. As imperialism has made the entire world its battle field, it is justified to fight it, by any means necessary, without regard for geography. This holds especially true for those of us struggling behind enemy lines, inside the US, an entity that is an equal party in all crimes committed by the Zionists. Whether in the besieged Gaza Strip, the Red Sea, the South of Lebanon or the heart of the US, there must be consequences for genocidal Zionist imperialism, and those consequences are righteous.”
It is hard to read this as anything but an endorsement for the murders of the two embassy staffers in DC. The full statement calls Elias Rodriguez, the shooter, a political prisoner and assigns his actions as “consequences for genocidal Zionist imperialism” and “legitimate act[s] of resistance.” It cites the increasing crackdown of nonviolent protest in countries like Germany and France as justification for the use of violent action. It goes beyond some statements that correctly analyze that the brutality and violence perpetuated by Israel will inevitably result in blowback onto its political functionaries. It outright says that that blowback is justice.
This statement and repost was picked up by congressman/rabid Zionist Ritchie Torres and current NYC Mayoral Candidate/sex pest Andrew Cuomo. Both used it as an opportunity to smear DSA at large by pedaling a narrative that the Liberation Caucus spoke for the entire organization. The propaganda machine immediately revved up and jumped at the opportunity to capitalize on this situation. After staying silent during the aftermath of the shooting, the National Political Committee of the DSA put out an official statement condemning vigilante violence and the murders explicitly. That statement also distanced itself from the statement of the Liberation Caucus making it clear that “any statement otherwise is not the stance of DSA.”
The Unity of Fields’ statement is predicated entirely on the premise that the murder of these two embassy staffers directly materially contributed to the liberation of Palestine. This premise is false. The statement compares this act of violence to the Ansar Allah’s actions in the Red Sea and to resistance fighters in Gaza directly engaging with the IOF. Frankly, this comparison is disgusting.
Let me be perfectly clear: The killing of these two staffers did not achieve anything meaningful in the struggle to free Palestine. No geopolitical dynamics were shifted as in the case of the Red Sea blockade, nor were forces directly confronted and halted as they try to commit genocide in Gaza. This comparison might have held weight if the victims of the shooting were people of consequence high in the command of the Israeli military or political apparatus. As it stands, though, the only material reality here is that two employees of the Israeli embassy are dead. This is hardly justice for anyone.
And let’s talk about justice for a moment. I think we can all safely say that in a just world, those responsible for this genocide would face trial. Historically there has been a spectrum of consequences applied to war criminals, ranging from rehabilitation all the way to execution. You may disagree with me but I do not believe that those two embassy staffers, who still held some modicum of responsibility, deserved to be executed for their role within the Israeli State. If you believe that, then you are not far off from believing that the only way to pay for a genocide is with another genocide. Should those who played part in upholding the brutal status quo face consequences? Absolutely, but those consequences must be measured and commensurate to the material harm done.
It’s therefore completely inaccurate to label the shooter a political prisoner. He categorically is not. He was not imprisoned for his political beliefs, associations, or speech. Imagine a scenario where Elias Rodriguez advocates for violence against the Israeli state but was not the one to pull the trigger. If he were arrested for a crime he did not commit, then he could accurately be called a political prisoner. If he gets a harsher sentence based on his political beliefs, then you could make the argument. But as it currently stands, he was arrested because he openly admitted to killing the two staffers.
This extension of the term “political prisoner” here is dangerous. By labelling Elias a political prisoner, you are using the same tactic as the QAnon right by claiming the “pizzagate” gunman was a political prisoner. Both of these people were arrested because of crimes they committed, not because of their political beliefs. When you extend this label to them, you are essentially saying “all anyone has to do to be a political prisoner is shoot someone for political reasons.” I don’t think I need to explain why our enemies adopting this norm would be terrible.
But let’s say you don’t actually believe any of that. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you do think armed struggle against the United States is necessary, you do think that violent actions towards Israeli-state functionaries is justified resistance, and you do think that what happened to those staffers moved us closer to a free Palestine.
Do you think the majority of the working class agrees with you? Do you think they are going to read this statement and take up arms? Someone in DSA might read this and decide to join the Liberation Caucus but do you think a politically disengaged person will read this and decide to join DSA? Do you think that DSA, as an organization, has the capacity to wage this war?
Is this how you build a mass movement?
Many are trying to paint this as a United Healthcare assassination situation. In the aftermath of the CEO’s killing, we saw a surge in popular support for the killer and not just by the politically minded. People who would not consider their politics radical were actively saying in public circles, “This was a good thing that happened.” That did not happen in the case of Elias Rodriguez. Even if you believe in your heart of hearts that what he did was righteous, publicly taking that stance is not going to have the recruitment effect that you want. All it will do is place you at a higher risk of state violence.
This was also a situation where DSA was remaining relatively silent about the event. As far as I remember, only the NYC DSA chapter released a public statement on twitter. I think waiting and not reacting was the more strategic move. However, the Liberation Caucus’ actions forced DSA to make a statement, furthering divisions from factions who believe DSA is still Zionist friendly and not principled.
I could easily label those in this caucus as “cosplay revolutionaries” dressing themselves up in emancipatory language and radical imagery to hide that they have no real plan for bringing about socialism beyond “armed struggle.” That they care more about being morally righteous in their stances under the guise of “being principled” than they do about forcing change. But I refuse to believe that to be true. DSA is an organization of intelligent, passionate, and empathetic comrades who would not organize around such a shallow identity.
Instead it is clear to me that the people who shared and made this statement did so from a place of pain, anger, and deep sadness. Like me, they have seen Palestinian children maimed, brutalized, amputated, burned, crushed, and killed. They have seen the socialist movement in the US grow too slow and fascism accelerate too fast. They believe there is no other option. And so, when there finally was seemingly some consequence to some part of the Israeli death machine, they rejoiced.
I think we can empathize with how they feel and still recognize this was not the win they say it was.
But we can’t give in to this despair and rage as justification for making poor strategic choices. As I laid out earlier, this shooting was viewed by the majority of Americans as a terroristic action, and the media is trying to spin it as antisemitic. If we spend our time idolizing the shooter and justifying his actions, we lose the ability to discredit this false narrative. We also invite unnecessary attention to our organization. History has shown the US is perfectly willing to crush left-wing movements when they become too much of a threat to the status quo. Why invite that sooner with statements like this before we are ready to survive such an attack?
The reality is that many in the US are not even at a point to join DSA in a “door knocking” capacity much less an “armed struggle” capacity. It can be easy to think, “My politics have developed to this point and are moral and just, therefore everyone should also share this worldview.” That’s not how to win people to our side. There is not a sleeping population of radicals ready to jump into action if they just see the right social media post. Ultimately, DSA can do more to turn public opinion towards the Palestinian cause when these kinds of statements are avoided. And coming at it again from a stance of empathy for those that supported it, you may still feel like it is the morally correct thing to do.
But we live in the heart of the US empire. We don’t get to be morally righteous. Our souls are stained black already. If we’re to right the wrong that this country has done, we must sacrifice our own sense of individual morality and outrage for the sake of the movement. We cannot commit to actions that put us at unnecessary risk of state violence with no consideration for the larger organization. DSA does not have adequate contingencies for that. Whether we agree with them or not, such radical statements should be made in person to people we trust, away from nefarious forces that seek any reason to divide us against each other and alienate us from the public.
We’re trying to ignite the fire of socialism in the hearts of the people. Let’s not smother it before we even get it started.
