Support, but don’t endorse Platner
This opinion is part of a series debating what, if any, endorsements Maine DSA should consider in 2026. We welcome contributions. You can read the first in the series arguing in favor of endorsing Platner and Troy Jackson here, What’s at State in Maine in 2026?
***
“[I]t is not sufficient to attach a “vanguard” label to rearguard theory and practice.” — V. I. Lenin, What is to be Done?
Since launching his senatorial campaign in August, 2025, Graham Platner has quickly gained national attention. Graham has presented himself as a progressive candidate, criticizing the Republican Party for its extreme reaction, but also criticizing the Democratic Party for its utter fecklessness. This hardline progressive and anti-oligarchy position has earned Graham much praise within the progressive movement of the U.S., even earning Graham a speaking opportunity at Bernie Sanders’ 2025 Labor Day Rally in Portland, Maine.
This has predictably led to discussion within Maine DSA about whether the organization should endorse Graham, of which this article is a part. I do not deny that there is much to like about Graham. There are many provisions in his platform which Maine DSA was already fighting for. I do not deny that there are ways in which Maine DSA can and should support Graham’s campaign, but I am also of the opinion that it would be political suicide for Maine DSA to endorse Graham. Hence why I am arguing for “support without endorsement” in this article.
My argument against endorsement rests upon the following premises: 1) to endorse something is to give said thing one’s stamp of approval; 2) it is the job of all self-identified/self-described socialists and their organizations to advance a socialist agenda; 3) Maine DSA is a self-identified/self-described socialist organization; 4) it is, therefore, incumbent upon Maine DSA to advance a socialist agenda; 5) Graham Platner’s platform in its entirety is not only not a socialist platform, but is arguably an anti-socialist platform; 6) Maine DSA would, therefore, not be advancing a socialist agenda by endorsing Graham Platner; 7) Maine DSA should, therefore, not endorse Graham Platner.
How can we be sure that Graham’s platform is not a socialist one? My, admittedly only, proof comes from the section of Graham’s platform titled Take on Waste and Corruption at the Pentagon; Rebuild American Shipbuilding, which includes the following articles:
“We need to take the funds currently paying for mansions in Virginia and Maryland for defense contractors, and reinvest them into closing the massive shipbuilding gap.
I’ve seen under the hood. I know exactly how much money is wasted, and where. Send me to Washington and I will work tirelessly to rebuild the American military.” (Archived Platform)
There still appears to be much to like in these provisions at first glance, but closer examination reveals content which is highly problematic when considered from a socialist perspective.
[Read next: Gaza solidarity… New Banner, New Location, New Friends]
In my larger critique of Graham, I argued that any plan to close the US-China shipbuilding gap would be economically unfeasible without deepening the United States’ already unprecedented imperial exploitation of the globe, and that this would likely entail imperialist war. The project of expanding US shipbuilding to where it could compete with China would likely dwarf the construction of the interstate highway in the US; a project which was undertaken at the peak of the US empire in the 1950s, whereas now the US empire is in a period of steep decline, as is evidenced by the country’s shift from free trade to economic protectionism. The US currently accounts for only 0.1% of global shipbuilding whereas China builds more ships than the rest of the world combined. (Center for Strategic & International Studies).
Even if it were economically feasible, it still raises the question of what purpose there would be in closing the US-China shipbuilding gap? It’s easy to grasp why China now accounts for 53.3% of global shipbuilding (Ibid.). As the industrial capital of the world, China needs a substantial shipbuilding infrastructure to build the shipping capacity it requires to effectively export the commodities it produces for countries around the world, including the US. This is not only affirmed by the historical example of the British Empire, whose naval peak coincided with their industrial peak as the industrial capital of the world in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth century, but is also affirmed by the example of US ally South Korea, a country which also produces a great many goods for export and accounts for the second most global shipbuilding output at 29.1% (Ibid.).
The US, by contrast, while still being a very large exporter, is an overall net importer (Bureau of Economic Analysis). The US has a far smaller industrial capacity than China owing to its much smaller population. The ability of the US to be a competitive exporter is already hampered by the comparatively high cost of US labor, and this also means that expanding US shipbuilding might not translate to making the US a more effective importer either. And this is also before we even consider the effect that Trump’s tariff policy has on all of these factors.
Thorough study of the US-China shipbuilding gap leads one to the conclusion that the gap is simply insurmountable for the US for several reasons. Firstly, because the US simply lacks the manpower to facilitate the expansion of US shipbuilding that’s necessary to compete with China. Secondly, even if the shipbuilding infrastructure of US allies like South Korea and Japan are counted as part of the US shipbuilding infrastructure, it’s still unclear that the US would be able to close the resultant 11% gap between the US and China, as China is likely to continue expanding its shipbuilding capacity during this same time. Thirdly, building a newer, more modern, and more efficient shipbuilding infrastructure in the US would likely require the deconstruction of the existing infrastructure to create a clean slate to build on, further allowing China to expand its lead over the US. Fourthly, even ignoring the military utility and all other logistical problems, it’s simply unclear what purpose is served by expanding the US’ shipbuilding capabilities.
As I currently understand the prevailing state of US shipbuilding, expanding the existing infrastructure would, at best, make for a good jobs program, but shipbuilding for the sake of job creation is a different matter than shipbuilding to close a competitive gap with another country. As I will explain later, socialists have no interest in competing with other countries anyway.
[Read next: As Cumberland County Goes, So Go Immigrant Rights in Maine]
The section of Graham’s platform which is most objectionable from a socialist perspective is the clause on rebuilding the US military. Socialists, including moderate socialists, have always been resolutely opposed to war between countries and service in the militaries of capitalist countries. This is due to the socialists’ adherence to the concept of internationalism—the concept that the working class has no country and is therefore international, if not anti-national—which rests on the following premises, as we have summarized elsewhere:
1) under capitalism, individuals make money by selling commodities; 2) the thing that distinguishes the working class from all other classes is that they sell their ability to work to an external consumer as a commodity; 3) as a commodity, the price of labor power is subject to the same basic laws as any other commodity; 4) the price of labor power therefore decreases when workers compete with each other for work or when there is an increase in the availability of labor power; 5) workers should not compete with each other for any reason because all it accomplishes is the mutual immiseration of workers to the benefit of capital owners; 6) workers should cooperate or unite with each other for the mutual benefit of all workers; 7) this idea extends to workers of different national origins because competition between workers of different nations has the same mutually destructive effects on workers as competition between workers of the same nation, especially as labor markets become increasingly globalized in step with the rest of the economy (The Revolutionist).
From these premises, it follows further that since socialiststs do not support workers competing with each other, we also do not support workers killing each other, which is the inevitable result of war between countries. This is stated explicitly and succinctly in the Resolution on Militarism adopted by the Socialist International at its 1907 congress in Stuttgart, Germany, which says,
“Wars between capitalist states are, as a rule, the outcome of their competition on the world market, for each state seeks not only to secure its existing markets, but also to conquer new ones. In this, the subjugation of foreign peoples and countries plays a prominent role. These wars result furthermore from the incessant race for armaments by militarism, one of the chief instruments of bourgeois class rule and of the economic and political subjugation of the working class.
Wars are favored by the national prejudices which are systematically cultivated among civilized peoples in the interest of the ruling classes for the purpose of distracting the proletarian masses from their own class tasks as well as from their duties of international solidarity.
Wars, therefore, are part of the very nature of capitalism; they will cease only when the capitalist system is abolished or when the enormous sacrifices in men and money required by the advance in military technique and the indignation called forth by armaments, drive the peoples to abolish this system.
For this reason, the proletariat, which contributes most of the soldiers and makes most of the material sacrifices, is a natural opponent of war which contradicts its highest goal—the creation of an economic order on a Socialist basis which will bring about the solidarity of all peoples.”
In this regard, in the sense that it can be said that Graham is actively supportive of the US military and its expansion, it can be conclusively said that Graham Platner’s platform is an anti-socialist one. To endorse Graham would therefore be to endorse his platform, and endorsing a platform which clearly expresses explicitly anti-socialist values would constitute more than a simple failure to advance a socialist agenda, it would constitute the advancement of an anti-socialist agenda. This would be especially damaging for Maine DSA since it has already demonstrated that it understands the importance of internationalism by forming a working group specifically dedicated to internationalism, meaning that the organization should know better than to endorse a platform like the one currently being advanced by Graham.
It would be one thing if Graham’s platform was ambiguous on such core aspects of socialist politics, in which case we would be unable to offer a strong argument against endorsement, as the rest of Graham’s platform consists of fairly milquetoast social-democratic policy initiatives which socialists have historically supported with the cynical goal of showing the limits of social-democracy by removing any barrier to it. But as shown above, any self-described socialist organization cannot endorse/approve of Graham’s platform in its current state. If Graham is interested in obtaining the endorsement of Maine DSA, he should be made to earn that endorsement by changing his platform to one which conforms to socialist values.
[Read next: Trump’s Social Murder Bill Passes — Now What?]
DSA is the largest socialist organization in the country, and Maine DSA is the biggest socialist organization in the state of Maine. This means that it is the vanguard of the working class struggle regardless of the discomfort moderates in the organization may feel toward the label of vanguard. We have built that political capital through our own hard work and perseverance, and part of that has meant taking the correct position even when it would be easier not to. While building that political capital has been quite difficult, losing it by making unforced errors is quite easy, and giving Graham our endorsement without making him earn it would be one such unforced error.
By endorsing Graham, Maine DSA would be committing the error of workerism, that is, the tailist error of supporting whatever is popular with the working class, even when what the working class wants is not in its interests as a class.
While I speak very strongly against endorsing Graham, I do not deny that he is by far the strongest candidate in his race. I do not deny that Graham, if elected, would be a definite improvement over Susan Collins in the US Senate—though that could also be said of any completely inanimate object. We want to be quite clear that I support Graham. There are many individual articles in Graham’s platform which do not contradict a socialist agenda and are or have already been advanced by Maine DSA. In these regards, I cannot argue in good faith against supporting Graham in some form, I only argue that support must not come in the form of endorsement. Such alternative forms of support could be things like doorknocking, phonebanking, and other forms of volunteer work which will support Graham’s campaign much more materially than a formal endorsement while also allowing Maine DSA to maintain a critical orientation towards Graham. I recognize that socialist organizations need to be flexible in their tactics, but history shows that socialist organizations cease to be socialist when that same flexibility is extended to the socialist program. Hence why I argue here for support without endorsement for Graham Platner, as I feel this exemplifies the kind of programmatic rigidity and tactical flexibility that must be at the core of any socialist politics.
#MaineDSA #politics
DoomsdaysCW
Todd Chretien
