Marxist Unity Group, one of the DSA factions that identifies with communism, has put forth a plan that can supposedly let them overcome the pro-bourgeois wing’s dominance. This plan involves demanding that the Democrats who control the DSA give communists a fair debate, and thereby willingly imperil their own interests. This is an honest description of the MUG’s strategy, which was formulated out of a desire to rationalize the absurdity of its mission. Trying to reform the DSA is as futile as trying to reform the Democratic Party, because the DSA is the direct action wing of the Democrats.
The very existence of the MUG proves this to be true, because its role is to funnel revolutionary passions into an organization that MUG admits is controlled by the Democrat wing of our ruling class; the statement proposing this DSA takeover plan says that AOC “does not share our politics or our strategy,” which by extension applies to the DSA leadership itself. The text begins by recognizing just how hopeless the cause of changing the organization is, unless the balance of power fundamentally shifts. This is where the MUG must try to explain why such a shift can supposedly happen, even though the DSA’s power structure is fundamentally rigged in favor of the pro-capitalist side:
DSA has grown tremendously over the past ten years in both numbers and confidence. We can plan a bolder intervention in this election than ever before, if we discuss and prepare for it early. In this dialogue, MUG will make no secret that we want a cadre candidate: a socialist tribune who will run for president on the DSA platform. DSA has many talented organizers who could rise to this task if given the opportunity. Even if they lack name recognition at the outset, we can make them famous. Together with our comrades, MUG will assist outreach to potential candidates and encourage them to take the leap.
We believe a DSA presidential tribune can electrify working-class struggle and advance our party forward by decades. But we know this hope is pure fantasy if we can’t win over our comrades in a fair debate. DSA needs a deliberative process that allows membership to advocate for our competing visions: whether it’s for endorsing AOC, abstaining from endorsing any presidential candidate, or going all in to raise up a cadre candidate. No matter your perspective, we all must stand and make our case, and not hope for external events to save us.
To win the class-conscious workers away from this dead-end strategy, we must show what the alternative looks like. It looks like socialist patriotism, where we build a party for the workers on the basis of continuing America’s revolution. On the basis of giving America’s working class a truly independent political outlet, which they can only gain by rejecting the national nihilism that Democrats want us to embrace.
MUG’s positions and behaviors make it clear that our class enemies want us to scorn patriotism, because by rejecting patriotism MUG has put itself in exactly the position our enemies want Marxists to be in. They want us to believe that American nationhood should be fought against, and thereby set ourselves up for failure in winning over the American masses. If we handicap ourselves in this way, then we’ll either be isolated or we’ll be tied in with the Democratic Party, which is what’s happened with the Marxists inside DSA. It’s no coincidence that at the same time MUG insists on DSA entryism being the answer, it advocates for waging a struggle against the Constitution, and therefore against American nationhood:
We want socialist leaders to erode the popular legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution through combative political agitation: never bowing to the old order, and always acknowledging the need for a working class revolution in the United States. The socialist revolution will not base its legitimacy on the laws of the slaveholder constitution. We will base it on a democratic majority mandate for socialism. This majority may be expressed by the popular vote of an election, but it does not have to take that form if the state represses our ability to contest elections. We stand for the right of the working class to take power by any means necessary.
To win a socialist republic, millions of working people must be mobilized in their workplaces, at the ballot box, and in the street. We recognize that the capitalist class relies on the minoritarian rule of the U.S. Constitution, and they will not give it up peacefully. The working class will need armed self-defense to protect itself from the inevitable violence of reaction. We also recognize that we must fight for the democratic rights of enlisted U.S. soldiers. To complete a successful revolution, we must win a decisive section of the military rank and file over to our side.
This illustrates why the national nihilist position assists our class enemies, even when the ones promoting the position have intentions for workers militancy and organization. The Constitution is at this stage the main thing protecting our movements from unencumbered repression, and is in reality something that our ruling class has been seeking to dismantle. Whenever a political dissident gets persecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights, this is our rulers doing the exact opposite of what MUG says they’re doing, and trying to destroy a key part of the American revolution’s legacy. It’s because of this objective reality about the role that the Constitution has, where it’s upheld actual historic revolutionary gains, that struggling against the Constitution can only isolate you from the masses. It’s negation for its own sake, which sets you up against the democratic desires of the people you wish to win over.
If you’re familiar with the logic of ultra-leftism, it’s not surprising that the MUG takes this position; within this mentality, the goal is to be the most radical, and to attack what seems like the most significant target. Ultra-leftism is only one part of MUG’s politics, though. To understand the origins of their view on revolution, we need to look at past examples of when idealists have tried to reconcile wanting to be “revolutionary” with subordinating oneself towards the bourgeoisie.
MUG would no doubt dispute the accusation that they’re submissive to capitalist interests, but they can’t credibly do so while working to funnel the people into DSA. And the only way that such a practice can be rationalized from a “revolutionary” perspective is by embracing the “revolution through reforms” view on how political change works. This is a view which was able to appear coherent via equivocation between the bourgeois revolutions, and the concept of proletarian revolution. As Lenin explained regarding this trick:
The bourgeoisie and the liberals teach that revolutions are unnecessary and even harmful to the workers, that they must not “shove” toward revolution, but, like good little boys, work modestly for reforms. That is why, in order to divert the Russian workers from socialism, the reformists, who are the captives of bourgeois ideas, constantly refer to the example of Austria (as well as Prussia) in the 1860s. Why are they so fond of these examples? Y. Larin let the cat out of the bag; because in these countries, after the “unsuccessful” revolution of 1848, the bourgeois transformation was completed “without any revolution”.
That is the whole secret! That is what gladdens their hearts, for it seems to indicate that bourgeois change is possible without revolution!! And if that is the case, why should we Russians bother our heads about a revolution? Why not leave it to the landlords and factory owners to effect the bourgeois transformation of Russia “without any revolution”! It was because the proletariat in Austria and Prussia was weak that it was unable to prevent the landed proprietors and the bourgeoisie from effecting the, transformation regardless of the interests of the workers, in a form most prejudicial to the workers, retaining the monarchy, the privileges of the nobility, arbitrary rule in the countryside, and a host of other survivals of medievalism.
This is the real historical basis for the kind of “revolution” that the entryists seek: the workers being overrun by the power of capital, and their efforts being co-opted into a project for strengthening the bourgeoisie’s rule. The reason why the MUG’s strategy can only bring this outcome, and why it can’t in practice be anything besides entryist, is because there’s no way to have independence when your entire operation is inside the domain of the enemy.
When the Bolsheviks worked in the reactionary trade unions, they were only able to maintain independence because they already had their own party, which was capable of functioning separately from any bourgeois institution. The MUG have no such party, all that they have is the DSA. Therefore as long as they’re part of the DSA, whatever they do can only assist the entrenched bourgeois interests that they wish to defeat.
The MUG talks about a workers party, and this indicates that they intend to use their presence in DSA as a means for establishing such an organization. There’s a reason why the MUG isn’t capable of doing this, though, at least not in a way that could create an effective popular institution. This reason is that the MUG promotes an ultra-left view of America’s conditions, which always dooms you to failure. An anti-Constitution stance can only win you favor among the niche, academic left crowd who’ve already embraced the leftist “critical theories.” And the masses are never going to be won over to these theories, because they’re contrary to the practical needs of the American people.
“The concepts, the ideas, motivating petty-bourgeois radicalism are not necessarily wrong in the abstract,” wrote Gus Hall about these kinds of idealist notions. “Those who follow wrong concepts, in most cases, are dedicated and sincere individuals. The concepts are wrong when they do not reflect the specific reality of the moment. Therefore, the more determined such individuals are, the more damaging they can be. Good intentions and even good ideas are not enough. One of the key ingredients in a revolutionary struggle is people in mass. People do not respond to commands or to exhortations. They do not respond to ideas–even good ideas–if they do not see their self-interests involved in these ideas.”
Within the realm of Democratic Party entryism, ultra-leftism and petty-bourgeois radicalism are experiencing a resurgence after their initial post-Biden decline, with the new main proponents of these politics being in the DSA. When the ultra-left DSA faction’s inability to defeat the pro-capitalist wing inevitably produces a split, what replaces the DSA will either be another version of idealism, or a real workers movement that advances the people’s objective needs.
One sign of hope that the latter will happen is the growing disillusionment within the DSA itself, as shown by the MUG’s statements about just how untrustworthy actors like AOC are. Those who are becoming disillusioned won’t necessarily come to socialist patriotism, and many of them will no doubt become even more ultra-leftist in reaction to the DSA entryist strategy’s failure. Such is the nature of these kinds of splits: those involved in the inner-org conflicts won’t all go in the same direction. Our duty is to win over as many of those involved as we can, and provide them with an alternative organization that can actually bring the masses to victory.
————————————————————————
If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here.
To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.
