We’re a newly formed DSA caucus. We’ve written this public statement to clarify what we are all about, and what we would like to do. We are currently based out of the East Bay DSA, but we hope to begin organizing with comrades everywhere!
DSA Communist Caucus banner
1. We are of the working class. We recognize ourselves as part of the working class because we have no meaningful ownership of the institutions that produce everyday essentials. Nor have we inherited massive sums of compounding wealth. We have nothing but our bodies and minds, and we are forced to put them to work. We are compelled to carry out unfulfilling jobs, work long hours, piece together dangerous hustles, or else delude ourselves into believing that education is not merely workplace training. All of this means that our lives are dominated by the capitalist economy. Only wealthy elites benefit from this arrangement. Our freedom will only come from collective ownership, access, and control over the means of life. The DSA’s objective should be to end capitalist exploitation and domination for good.
2. Despite our shared condition as part of the class, our individual experience is often radically different. This is a main feature of working class life. We experience class society through racialized and gendered identities; according to work types, like blue collar, white collar, and unwaged labor; and through our full-time, part-time, or unemployed status. Internal separations and inequalities of power between us is a fundamental trait of life under capitalism. Racialized and gendered oppressions are ruthlessly intensified by our class subordination. The need for class power requires that we move against these internal divisions, even if they cannot be fully transcended before capitalism ends. Real freedom, true equality, and liberty that is not defined as consumption choices: these desires spur us to act together. Once capitalist society is buried, even the most privileged of our class will find fulfillment beyond what is possible in today’s society. We have everything to gain from our collective liberation.
3. Making demands of capital and the state are only useful if doing so organizes us as a class. Organizing as a class teaches us how to collectively fight and win. We learn how to sustain protracted strikes, occupations, blockades, and take-overs. We improve our ability to rout white supremacists, pressure bosses, force politicians to act, or reverse urban displacement. As we get organized, we build our capacity and endurance to fight together. Our ability to become a collective force allows us to reclaim the dignity and autonomy that is forcibly taken from us daily. We want full control over our collective situation. We are done with our fractured and alienated social lives. We will seize control of the world which was built through our collective exploitation and domination. All of this we want, and yet none can be had through the ballot box. Concessions from the capitalist classes come only as a response to our collective power.
4. We oppose all institutions that block working class power. Engaging in struggle teaches us who these enemies are. Some enemies have already become clear. This includes police departments, the Democratic and Republican Parties, union bureaucrats who betray us to serve the interests of capital, and nonprofit organizations that co-opt and nullify social movements. There are those who, like the Republican Party, obviously oppose us. Others, such as the Democratic Party, hide their opposition behind false acts of goodwill. They publically advocate policies that are said to reduce harm. But their real goal is expressed in their relationship with Goldman Sachs and other capitalist institutions: to manage capitalism more efficiently as an alternative to replacing it. Their paternalistic harm-reduction schemes can never replace, and will often decay, working class power.
5. We live in an age of intense capitalist crises that appear everywhere. Environmental destruction; rapid urban displacement; violent police management of black and brown people; brutal objectification of feminized workers; excessive working hours for those on salary; high levels of debt; the explosion of mental health problems among us; everyday social isolation; and, of course, Donald Trump — all of these are symptoms of today’s capitalist disaster. Some time ago, our class maintained solidarities based in the factory, in the neighborhood, and in common ways of life. These solidarities gave us access to at least some collectively shared life essentials. Collective access to essentials protected us from unpredictable changes in the market, like housing insecurity or rising expenses. Decades of counter-revolution have destroyed most of these. We have been turned into isolated individuals. We are left with few organic connections to community. As a consequence, we are forced to rely on the capitalist market for almost everything. More market-dependent than ever, the ongoing crisis of capitalism now makes itself appear in every facet of life. We feel caught in a paradox: our era seems apocalyptic, while at the same time capitalism seems indestructible. But the opposite is true. The world has yet to end, and capitalism can be overthrown.
6. We need a working-class organization that can support and build our collective power. The DSA should aim to grow and connect, not to instruct, the revolutionary desires of all parts of the working class. Our organizational actions should be measured by the project of expanding our collective power and fighting spirit, with the goal of overthrowing capitalism. From those of us lucky enough to find employment in the affluent field of tech, to those of us who have been denied reasonable employment altogether — we must build real, which is to say practical, solidarities between us. Building practical solidarities is done through action, not through words. Real solidarity will be made if we remain open to supporting different parts of our class as they become politically active. Since the future political activity of different parts of our class is unpredictable, we must always be prepared to change course, act on new situations, and remain ready to take necessary tactical risks. In other words, we must be strategic without becoming dogmatic. Doing so will ensure that we become powerful together, and it is only together that we may endeavour to create a new world.
7. Building working class power requires us to understand our collective worries, desires, and needs. In the immediate term, this means studying, identifying, and organizing around our collective experiences. As the second largest socialist organization in US history, we have a unique opportunity to organize DSA members. Inquiries regarding work, rent, consumption, and sociality should be immediately conducted for DSA members. In addition, we must conduct inquiries for those external to our organization, so that we can find ways of empowering others in our class. We can begin with those close to DSA members, like co-workers, neighbors, friends, and associates. We have to retain an outward-looking stance if we want to grow and develop solidarities throughout the working class. As our class gains a shared sense of trust and organizational strength, we will build a path to victory.
8. Working class power is international or it is nothing! The system of capital that confronts us is thoroughly global; it reaches well beyond the boundaries of the United States. Capitalist exploitation means extraction in Africa, exploitation in Asia, and the propagation of urban slums throughout the Global South. This system of global capitalism is not natural. It is reinforced by the military might of the United States government. Our development of class power through international solidarities stems from our collective opposition to the US government’s capacity to build empire and inflict imperialist violence. The history of the US state is riddled with the counter-revolutionary acts of imperialism, slavery, genocide and colonialism. We must always remember this history, for it shows the development of the American state as a terroristic capitalist formation. Just as global capitalism, today’s working class crosses all national borders. Capitalism is a global threat, and only a globally-organized working class is sufficient for fighting it.
9. The DSA has a great potential for promoting and unifying working class struggles. We can do this by acting to support self-organized power in all parts of our class. We hope comrades far and wide will join us in this effort. Together, we can win the world, and forever cast off our chains.
Comments
The DSA is not a radical
The DSA is not a radical organization. Look at how the East Bay DSA describes the DSA:
"we support reforms that...
* Decrease the influence of money in politics
* Empower ordinary people in workplaces and the economy
* Redistribute wealth and decommodify basic needs
* Restructure gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable"
So, sanding the rough edges off of the capitalist state and the capitalist workplace.
My question is, did this so-called "Communist Caucus" enter the DSA in some Trotskyist maneuver (and are they Trots?), or did they somehow radicalize while in the DSA? In any event they are trying to give life to a dead, rotting body.
Given that the DSA is part of
Given that the DSA is part of the electoral left; it's a multi-tendency, leftist org, akin to SYRIZA or ANTARSYA.
And given that it has previously endorsed voting Democrat.
I don't think libcom should host DSA platforms/propaganda.
Just to say admins are going
Just to say admins are going to discuss this and will respond shortly
What makes something
What makes something revolutionary?
Pennoid wrote: What makes
Pennoid
A hammer and sickle logo? (if you literally were referring to a "thing," as in an object)
@Hieronymous: Oh boy, I hope
@Hieronymous: Oh boy, I hope not! :P Then again it'd make our work a lot easier!
Considering we're talking about dumping swaths of the library or prohibiting the sharing of content based on the metric of whats revolutionary it seems an apt question.
I don't think it's much of metric to be honest. I don't think Libcomers agree on whether or not the DSA can be a place where libertarian communists can be effective. I don't think we should nip that debate in the bud by deleting this. That's puerile and sectarian.
It's strange because with all the fear of a creeping leninism on here, I don't think I nor any "bolshevik apologists" have really called for banning of texts. Simply argue your case. It's what the comments are for. DSA are far from Maoists and this faction is far from Maoist or Stalinist. The broad contours offered here mesh completely with those of Libcom. But at the merest difference of tactics or strategy some want to shut down discussion.
Ridiculous.
Pennoid wrote: DSA are far
Pennoid
Agreed.
I can't confirm it, but I've heard new recruits to DSA on the West Coast are communisateurs. Anyone else know further?
The greatest crime of DSA is they're boring and irrelevant reformist left-liberals; hardly a reason to launch a censorious sectarian witch hunt.
Craftwork wrote: I don't
Craftwork
Rather than calling for this to be taken down, solely because it was written by a caucus within the DSA, perhaps you could say what you disagree with in the statement?
This DSA 'Communist' Caucus
This DSA 'Communist' Caucus short statement has on the face of it some strengths. Whilst it overlaps with much of the sentiment running through the DSA basic strategy they say in straight contradiction of the mainstream DSA ''...and yet none of this can be had through the ballot box.'' though without any clarification of what that may mean in terms of their own practice in capitalist elections. The DSA's politics seem to be just reformist Social Democracy on the European model of a 'mixed economy' with an eclectic mix of other more trendy popular democratic notions. It is clearly neither anti-capitalist in principle nor libertarian communist in it's long term objective. It's internationalism is heavily 'anti American' rather than more broadly anti-Imperialist but that is perhaps understandable. The DSA seems to have a national structure based on local 'chapters' with a measure of local autonomy but I couldn't see what that left for open organising of any 'caucus' or 'faction' in open opposition to much else of what the DSA represents? It is understandable if the suspicion of 'Trotskyist' style entryism is raised about this Caucus with it's over-optimistic expectations of what ''we'' in the DSA can achieve in terms of empowering ''others'' in our class. I couldn't find any other texts explaining and justifying their involvement in the DSA from any genuine libertarian communist perspective.
So how is that an apparently 'anonymous' poster without traceable registration can post this up and not require the Caucus themselves to explain their apparent contradictory position within the DSA?
Don't expect it to be removed but some more explanation from the poster and/or the Caucus itself is necessary to allow it to be challenged.
Craftwork wrote: And given
Craftwork
That's an interesting position to take, given we host a number of articles by Adolph Reed, including one added by you.
Reed not only endorsed the Democrats but worked on the Sanders campaign as part of Labor for Bernie, then wrote an article telling people to vote for Hillary Clinton reminiscent of the 'vote for the crook not the fascist' slogan in the 2002 French presidential election.
Rather than suggest we take down Reed's articles, which despite his appeals to class politics always end up with an appeal to liberal reformism and mainstream trade unionism while writing off revolutionary class struggle as fantasism. I wrote this because Reed's work gets cited by various different people for different reasons, so it seemed better to engage with it than try to ignore it.
On the other hand this statement, while it leaves some open questions, takes a fairly uncompromising position on working class self organisation and communist politics, if anything it reminds me of the politics of the Johnson-Forest tendency (literally in the sense of a minority faction arguing for workers inquiry).
No intention of the site becoming a clearing house for various DSA position statements, but this is interesting and like Jim says you haven't said what you disagree with in it.
SpikeyMike wrote: Caucus
SpikeyMike
Their twitter account says registered September 2017, s the medium post went up September 6th so I think this is there first and so far only statement. The question of their relationship to the DSA as a whole is one that's left open by this document (as are a few other things) as you point out.
I agree the document is more
I agree the document is more vague than I would like to see, and I have my own problems with communization theory, but it's worth discussing as the ideas therein represent some on the left communist spectrum which is broadly under the umbrella of libertarian communism comprising forms of communism opposed to marxism-leninism, utopian socialism, etc. and emphasizing class struggle as its basis.
If any group was to hope to have relevance in the DSA it should at least outline achievable, actionable demands or reforms that it is after, explain why they would transform the organization, and then argue for their adoption.
At least then we could bring the discussion toward the concrete and relate theory to practice.
I would add that while I
I would add that while I disagree with Mike's essay against Reed, I'm glad that it exists because there can be discussion; simply purging the Reed would have made the discussion more difficult because some of those essays are otherwise behind paywalls as well.
Quote: We oppose all
It's not too bad.
I've seen someone describe
I've seen someone describe DSA as more similar to SDS in the 1960s then DSA pre-2016. I think it's not accurate to criticize a multitendency non-electoral organization like they are the Democrats. I don't think its clear what DSA is right now or what it will become. As such, developments that are close to the purpose of this site seem like they should be hosted.
Mike Harman wrote: That's an
Mike Harman
The Reed article that I uploaded here is an article on anti-racism, as opposed to a call for a Bernie vote, or a demand for an American labour party.
Pennoid
No one's talking about "dumping swaths of the library". My objection is to the fact that this is a programmatic text, a platform, coming out of the DSA. I wouldn't object if a DSA person contributes journalistic, historical, ..., content, because the merit of a person's work and how good their politics are not necessarily the same issue.
Hieronymous
Communisation theory is a lot like cheese - the French do it much better than the Americans.
Hieronymous
If you take a look at the bottom of the article, you will clearly see that this has been reposted from Medium. So removing it from here isn't gonna deprive people of their ability to read this faction's views.
It's a statement of a caucus.
It's a statement of a caucus. A caucus does not represent the whole organization but a subset of its membership united around a particular purpose or purposes.
Unfortunately, DSA doesn't have a program; but if it did it would be useful to share it here for interrogation critique and discussion.
Craftwork wrote: The Reed
Craftwork
Written in 2008 it would have been hard to fit a call for a Bernie vote in there, but he does lament the decline of social democratic politics 'Thus what the political scientist Preston Smith calls “racial democracy” came gradually to replace social democracy as a political goal'. This piece talks about neither of those things though, and you've still not engaged with any of the content that's in there as opposed to what you're projecting on it.
Juan Conatz
From what I've seen at a couple thousand mile distance, this is about a close a comparison as I can find. I'd previously assumed it was like a US equivalent of Momentum, but Momentum is literally part of the Labour Party whereas the DSA has no formal ties with the Democrats, so don't think that holds up and SDS seems a bit closer. Also the Democrats have spent the past year or two doing a very good job of completely alienating/vilifying anyone to the left of Clinton - there's no sign that they can competently recuperate a paper bag in their current state.
I don't find a lot to
I don't find a lot to disagree with in their aims, but I don't see why they don't break with the DSA if they want to be communists and not social democrats or market socialists which the DSA apparently is. This from the DSA's "about page" seems at odds with the positions stated above:
Pass. I have serious doubts
Pass. I have serious doubts about all of the causes and the survivability of DSA as a multi-tendency organization. Everyone wants "burrow" in today. Well, grooviness don't last forever in these sorts of set ups.
Being total shite does not
Being total shite does not disqualify one from exposure on libcom, period.
@Boozemonarchy; well anyone
@Boozemonarchy; well anyone can see that from a quick look at the forums!
(No subject)
Bruno Astarian: Stalinsim
Bruno Astarian: Stalinsim without Stalin.
Pennoid wrote: Bruno
Pennoid
That's about the most fucking moronic, uninformed thing you've ever said (and with great hubris you've splayed your ignorance here many a time).
To put it in context, your Bolshevik cadre-based racket is Leninism with Lenin.
Pennoid wrote: I agree the
Pennoid
This is a bit hard to take seriously given that the most prominent member of your organisation is constantly sneering at left-commies on his Facebook page, "edgelords", "pamphletbrain" etc, etc.
Anyway, CLT members are
Anyway, CLT members are already inside the DSA, this is one of the groups they're involved in - https://dsaspark.org
please tell me that is the
please tell me that is the CLT's mark
So CLT are practicing
So CLT are practicing classical Leninist opportunism with their entryism into DSA. Which begs the question of what they're doing lurking around here on libcom.
And I must confess my that my above post was attributing guilt-by-association. It was another CLT cadre who made this stupid allegation:
[quote=Donald Parkinson]While communization theory does make the occasional interesting insight and serve as a useful theoretical foil it largely is the case that what it offers is not a fresh new perspective for marxist politics but a repeat of Kropotkinist and Sorelian critiques of Marxism with more theoretical sophistication.[/quote]
As a teacher, I would give him a D-, but mostly for not having read the texts -- or if he feebly claims to have done so, for having comprehended nothing.
Lastly, returning to the topic of the original post: in San Francisco the ISO has taken over the local group, doing entryism from the right of DSA's social-democratic parliamentarian orthodoxy!
Here ya go, chuck the Trots
Here ya go, chuck the Trots into this mishmash of social democracy: https://oaklandsocialist.com/2017/09/16/dsa-eugene-debs-caucus-formed/
syndicalist wrote: Here ya
syndicalist
Sounds like DSA is quickly devolving into being 25,000 chunks of juicy reformist-liberal carrion being torn to bits by competing bloodthirsty Trotskyite and Leninist vultures.
I have to say, for a long
I have to say, for a long time I thought what the f*ck are anarchists/communists doing within thy DSA. But it does seem to be a pole of attraction for the newly radicalized in The US and I think there's value in putting forward a clear class struggle line with that grouping. I have no idea if this is the group/statement to do that, but I do see the value in making those arguments and engaging with the wider organisation.
Chilli, politics is either
Chilli, politics is either hopelessly reformist; or cynically manipulative. You can't talk to people with different opinions!
I dunno. I'm still sticking
I dunno. I'm still sticking with the SDS comparision for DSA. Very similar demographics. Very similar places where they are large, but also almost as spread out, too. In fact, for some places that now have DSA chapters with several dozen members, SDS may have been the last radical left organization that existed that had that many members.
The somewhat decentralized structure is similar, too. As I understand it, the national committee or whatever it is called, doesn't have much power over the local level groups and whatever staff they have that service the locals, is somewhat disorganized and not done great.
The big difference between SDS and DSA though is that SDS actually did things and developed before the proliferation of factions and caucuses. DSA hasn't really had that oppurtunity. Where people joined SDS for what it was, people are joining DSA for what it might be.
How is DSA relevant all of a
How is DSA relevant all of a sudden, when historically it has endorsed Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders for the U.S. presidency? Why not the 50 year old Peace and Freedom Party with its origins connected to the Panthers? Or the Greens, who's fundis in the mid-1980s supported an "anti-party party" anti-electoral position? Or the legacy of the Labor Party Tony Mazzocchi helped found in mid-1990s?
In my opinion all of those were destined for failure since they fetishize the Left-Leninist orthodoxy of building the organization first, emphasizing form over content. I remained unconvinced the DSA, which politically is to the right of all of the above groupings, is any different. Yet I remain agnostic and am open to being convinced otherwise. Despite the rhetoric, how can DSA contribute to class struggle? And how can anti-authoritarians coexist in organizations manipulated by parliamentary maneuverings, which inevitably happens when opportunistic Leninists and Trots -- especially the worst of the bunch, the ISO -- jockey to take over?
deleted
deleted
comrade_emma wrote: I find
comrade_emma
That's not a good sign.
deleted
deleted
Not adhering to the Leninist
Not adhering to the Leninist vanguard model would be a good sign.
deleted
deleted
Does this group still exist?
Does this group still exist? Have they actually done anything?
deleted
deleted
comrade_emma wrote: What is a
comrade_emma
You realise this is libcom don't you? Judging by Lenin peeking into your profile pic, maybe not. Many libcoms are not in favour of parties let alone vanguard parties irrespective of what Marx or the renegade Lenin said over a century ago.
I don't expect everyone, or
I don't expect everyone, or even most, to agree with me of course. But that wasn't my point, my point was that you are just throwing around random evil sounding buzzwords like "Leninist vanguard model". It literally just acts like a pat on the back from your libcom friends and as quizzical look from anyone who has read Marx or Lenin.
I mean seriously, I don't care about downvotes or disagreement but every time two or more people disagree with me someone says something along the lines of "you know most libcoms wouldn't agree with you right?".
Hieronymous wrote: How is DSA
Hieronymous
So I don't see the difference either, but in terms of relevance to this site, a lot of (in the main newly politicised) US people (maybe as much as 20,000?) have joined the DSA in the past year or two. This is a similar trend to the tens of thousands who joined the Labour Party and Momentum in the UK. Although they are structurally and politically quite different groups, but it's been the default organisation that people have joined in the same way, and the fact that various types of anarchist/trotskyist/leninist and non-aligned people have joined both groups is a common theme.
I think this is significant enough that it's relevant to publish/discuss critical stuff produced internally to those groups, as well as content critical of the organisations from a communist perspective - including on the limits of entryism etc.
Another way to put it - we can have a very low opinion of the organisation and its possibilities, but the organisation and the thousands of individuals in it aren't the same thing.
A Leninist vanguard model is
A Leninist vanguard model is one where important decisions are taken by a minority of 'important' members, reflecting the way they rule society if they take power. Not necessarily restricting an open party press or factions.
Marx said
to which one reply was
deleted
deleted
comrade_emma wrote: What is a
comrade_emma
There were plenty of twentieth century groups that continued a 'what is to be done' model outside the context of illegal groups in Tsarist Russia. It applies to most of the British Trotskyist groups for a start - full time cadre, unaccountable leadership etc. with horrible results.
So when people react to this, it is sometimes 'big A anarchism' in the sense of not having read Marx or Lenin or only having read it in the most hostile possible way, but it can also be a reaction to lived experiences of Trotskyist and/or Marxist-Leninist groups. Either on the outside watching the antics of Socialist Alternative, ISO, WRP, SWP, RCP or whatever, or people may be ex-members of those organisations. Also a lot of people in those groups haven't read much Marx either, they can be pretty shoddy for political education and encourage people to read interlocutors.
The impression I get from the statement though is it's located in the workers enquiry tradition, which started with Johnson-Forest (Grace Lee Boggs, Dunayevska, CLR James, Glaberman) and then the more recent communization stuff (although they haven't talked about this at all yet afaik, so it's mostly supposition). Those are interesting groups that didn't necessarily break with Lenin in all cases (see https://libcom.org/library/silences-suppression-workers-self-emancipation-historical-problems-clr-jamess-interpreta) but yet can't really be described as 'Leninist' either.
The "spontaneous struggle" is
The "spontaneous struggle" is Leninist vanguard terminology. It is used to counterpose with struggle directed or agitated by the party, in other words, orders from above - something the road to socialism will need to reject as many in the First International did. All major parties have some mass support and most governments and of course Lenin would claim the Bolsheviks had mass support wouldn't he?
deleted
deleted
-
-
comrade_emma
comrade_emma
So I think one way to avoid that line of argument, is to look at some of Lenin's final works:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm
Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/23.htm
Lenin
In these, there's a clear admission that:
- workers had genuine grievances against the bureaucracy, after a four year process of the Bolsheviks subsuming workers' organisations into the state.
- the Bolsheviks in four years had not made significant changes to the Tsarist state "It has only been slightly touched up on the surface". Although the one exception he holds up looks to be just an advisory group if anything and not any example of real self-management.
You don't need to think he was good or bad to recognise that he admitted these failings - although of course we can also point to him expelling Miasnikov from the party around the same time for making similar (but stronger) criticisms.
I do think that criticism of Lenin is strongest when it avoids conspiracy/betrayal and just focuses on his actual politics and behaviour. https://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve is an example of this.
comrade emma
It's not just outside though. A lot of the biggest wildcat strikes were by workers organised in formal unions, who struck despite/against the formal organisations they were a part of (and sometimes with tacit or explicit support from shop-floor union representatives, but not always). Informal work groups, strike committees and other forms may look spontaneous but they aren't necessarily.
I think you seriously
I think you seriously underestimate those that did not support the Bolsheviks.
While a vanguard is a minority of the class, it can have "mass support" and this is what Lenin claimed for the Bolsheviks. This sort of "mass support" is however not the consciousness required for socialism. The DSA should reject the Leninist vanguard as it is a barrier to socialist understanding including as evidenced by Lenins first actions in power.
Lenin is certainly regarded as the pioneer of fake news (Pravda) and post truth political campaigning demonstrated most ably by the trump campaign.
So does anyone know if the
So does anyone know if the 'DSA Communist Caucus' has done, or is doing, anything useful outside of arguing positions or strategy within the DSA itself?
Haven't seen anything in
Haven't seen anything in detail about it, but they mentioned this in the interview we did with them:
DSA Communist Caucus
https://libcom.org/library/interview-dsa-communist-caucus
They also get a positive
They also get a positive mention here: theleftwind.wordpress.com/2018/03/02/so-what-do-we-do/ - although I can't quite work out if the authors of that piece being enthusiastic about them is a negative thing or not.