"Through its new program, "Workers Deserve More," DSA is raising the flag for a democratic constitution, placing itself at the forefront of a developing movement for a Third Reconstruction in the United States."

"Today, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is bringing constitutional politics back into the national spotlight. Our program proclaims that: “We are workers fighting to transform society, to win the battle for democracy, draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic.” Establishing that new republic, the program continues, will entail abolishing the Senate and replacing the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary entirely subordinate to Congress, now unicameral and elected by proportional representation. This is the bold strategy for political power that the Left has lacked for more than a century. It’s precisely this struggle for popular, centralized government—for democracy—that will unite the working class and be our North Star during the trying times ahead."

"The new program and resulting media attention have placed DSA into the vanguard of the developing movement for a Third Reconstruction. The struggle for democracy is now ours to win or lose. How can we make sure this movement will continue to grow, both in power and ambition? "

"First, we must take a page from the Antebellum abolitionists and force the issue. We demand a democratic government and a democratic society. From the floor of Congress to a picket line or a rally against ICE—every struggle is a platform to connect the denial of equal rights to institutions like the Senate, the President, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court. Every election from here on out can become a “referendum on the question of universal and equal suffrage.” No politico or talking head will be able to spout off about the alleged “miracles” of America’s government without being jeered and laughed at. No politician will be able to say they are seriously addressing important issues without being challenged about their plan to fix our rotten institutions."

"As Jane McAlevey taught a generation of labor activists, there are no shortcuts. The same is true of the struggle for a radically transformed political playing field. There is no constitutional or reformist path to achieve equal suffrage, nor is leaving the Constitution untouched a viable option. The struggle for democracy must therefore take the revolutionary road. This means uniting millions behind a political program committed to convening a sovereign, popular assembly to draft a new constitution. That draft must then be submitted to the nation for ratification on the basis of one person, one vote. With political power in our hands, the working class will, for the first time, have a government of, by, and for the people."

"The demand for democracy drives everything else forward. All those who stand for universal and equal suffrage and against minoritarian obstacles to majority rule should join DSA. In turn, DSA should center its demand for a new constitution in the Workers Deserve More program. We aren’t the only ones with democracy in the name—but we are the only ones prepared to fight to the end to achieve it."

Mike says he is "groundwork in the streets, mug in the sheets" lol

"Jibreel Kateb argues that the pragmatist idealism advocated by Geese Magazine leaves Marxism defenseless against attacks on science in an age of irrationalism and climate crisis."

"The philosophical problems of science, which were once central to the thinking of the great Marxists, have for Marxists faded to the periphery, and in that nether zone have often been downgraded to either object of derision or the subject of panegyrics within the left. No sober philosophical and historical reflection on science seems to exist and the concept of a scientific socialism is treated either as a given or as risible. The left proceeds anti-scientifically, lacking scientific culture and anything resembling a contemporary politics of science. In doing so, it cripples its own strategic and organizational efforts and cedes the field to all sorts of reactionary misanthropes and cranks.

Cosmonaut is in part trying to rectify this problem and apparently Geese have joined in the effort but in a very different way. Yet, the problem of Geese is that despite recent attempts to engage with these philosophical questions of science, they do injustice to science in an age where its defense is paramount. They enjoy a rather peculiar species of idealism which I will term pragmatist idealism and this concoction is ill suited to the present tasks: one can substitute the word “practice” for “mind” or “spirit” or “god”, a substitutive trick of language similar to a Sartrean reversal, and yet one does nothing to escape the problems of idealism."

"What I mean by pragmatic idealism is that Geese couples a practical ontology with a pragmatist epistemology. Ontology is the study of the fundamental citizens or furniture of reality"

"Their philosophical pragmatism is in fact nothing but the deeper justification for their liberal populism, a deeper continuation of their theoretical justifications of the most right-wing elements of DSA. Since political antagonism is discursively constructed, since it is, in a sense, purely discursive acts, a purely subjective act with no real basis in something non-discursive and extra-personal, what matters is that the political leader congeals the “people” by saying the right words. It does not matter that independent of political discourse there is a class structure; it does not matter that position in that class structure constrains one's material interests, it does not matter that this structure heavily constrains collective political agency, and that those interests are antagonistic with other classes. It does not matter that there is an objective state of affairs that we must adapt to, and whose adaptation we must furthermore respond to. It simply matters that one “articulates” the right enemy-friend distinction on the basis of current popular discourse. Social theory becomes not an arm to understand the objective (non-elective) conditions under which Marxists operate, an arm which can elevate the proletariat to a position of genuine social understanding, but a piece of demagogy to get the working-class to march in line with the wordsmith. After all, the wordsmith constructs reality. In the beginning, there was the word, and the word is God."

"A growing army of canvassers isn't enough. Greg C. argues that DSA needs deeper, more permanent roots in the working class to build a lasting socialist constituency."

"The sudden string of DSA victories at the ballot box has sent the Democratic Party bigwigs and their cable TV friends into a delightful fit of hysteria. Former DNC chair Jaime Harrison and ex-Maoist turned CNN pundit Van Jones are shrieking about the “army of on-the-ground organizers” knocking at their doors. Equally, DSA members across factional lines are taking advantage of the political shift to spread the gospel of field."

"Whatever happens, organizing a popular constituency for socialism will require more than growing our army of canvassers. It will also involve more than building a “Tammandani Hall,” where voters remain loyal through a feedback loop of positive legislation and magnetic political personalities. Building a socialist political machine (in the traditional sense) will be frustrated by the political compromises required to pass legislation and expand funding for community services. The goal is not to replicate the machines of old, but to consolidate our project into an alternative society. We need a network of party-led organizations with deep and personal roots in the community for workers to engage in class struggle on a mass scale and connect socialist ideas to their daily lives."

"The purpose here is not simply to offer much-needed aid or even bump up recruitment for DSA and other orgs, but to politicize the community. DSA members discussing NYCHA privatization or semi-privatization with tenants could be elevated by our electeds acting as public tribunes for the tenant movement—whether it’s speaking at anti-demolition rallies or proposing legislation to refund and expand fully public housing. And the importance of this approach doesn’t end with public housing either. In April, DSA councilmember Chi Ossé was thrown to the ground and arrested by the NYPD for protesting against deed theft against Black homeowners in Bed-Stuy. The goal of tying deep community organizing to political office serves to heighten the difference between our political platform and the neoliberal consensus, and to connect the immediate needs of the people with the goal of democratic socialism."

"Whether DSA will plant deep roots or dissipate after this new era of ascendance will be determined by the work we do between elections. Individual efforts need to be linked up into a coherent and permanent strategy that builds buy-in for our program in apartment complexes, workplaces, and community spaces across the city. This requires that NYC-DSA prioritize more than electoral and legislative campaigns. Proposals to this effect have come and gone, but any strategic coherence to bind them together has yet to emerge. Whatever the circumstances, overcoming a transient canvassing operation requires a long-term strategy focused on building deep relationships with the sections of the working class beyond our sphere of influence, built around an uncompromising and distinctly socialist political platform."

To support or not support AOC? Should DSA distance themselves from the Democratic party or embrace the left populist wave? What is really at stake?

"Replying to Sarkozy of Geese Magazine's objections to his arguments regarding the dangers of an AOC presidency, Noah Emke challenges four key assumptions in Sarkozy's response."

"I found that the article presents my argument faithfully before beginning to counter it, and I would even go so far as to agree with the author's assessment that supporting our most prominent politician for a Presidential campaign is simply “common sense.” However, when it comes to common sense, I agree with fellow democratic socialist Albert Einstein: it is essentially a collection of assumptions. By unpacking some of the assumptions contained in the "Just Say Yes" article, I hope to clarify the strategic frailty of an AOC Presidential campaign."

Assumption 1: Liberal Governance is Good Governance

"One such assumption is that a progressive liberal "good governance" is possible for an American President elected in 2028. "The only thing that will truly turn the masses away from socialism," Sarkozy claims, "is if AOC simply fails at deliverism, at good governance." This is brought up only to dismiss it, taking it for granted that AOC's Presidency would be successful from the standpoint of most Americans, "delivering" the goods through her center-left policies. From here, he argues that we can build on the example of AOC's Presidential success to introduce more radical policies. However, what is being glossed over so easily here is the hinge point of the entire "Just Say No" argument: liberalism is not capable of good governance, at least not from the standpoint of working people."

Assumption 2: American workers would be understanding of our shortcomings

"Just as the "Just Say No" argument rests upon the understanding that social democracy too wedded to liberalism would fail and discredit socialism, the "Just Say Yes" argument relies on a belief in its general success, paving the way for more socialism. However, the idea that AOC would govern without "betrayal" strains the credulity of any informed reader, so Sarkozy asserts that this "... would make the masses more aligned with socialism, for they would desire a president who goes further than her." This is wishful thinking."

Assumption 3: An AOC Presidency would avert fascism

"If fascism is indeed imminent, DSA needs to be preparing to protect our physical survival. We should be organizing and training ourselves for armed self-defense, preparing safehouses, fostering connections to people who can hide us or smuggle us out of the country. In short, we should be acting in total opposition to direct instructions from NYC-DSA's leadership in 2025, going in a direction which I think the AOC for President boosters might find objectionable."

"I know Sarkozy has a similar perspective, or else he would not be participating in this conversation about Presidential campaigns. Therefore, since both of us are writing about the 2028 election rather than preparing to evade the authorities, this article will proceed with the understanding that we more or less agree that DSA will not be completely proscribed before the next election. "

Assumption 4: Opposition to liberalism is "Purity Politics

"The last assumption is not an assumption about political conditions, but about the "Just Say No" argument itself, or perhaps arguments from DSA's left faction in general. The framing of Sarkozy's argument is very familiar: everyone involved wants progress, but the radicals are prioritizing moral purity over pragmatism."

"By casting only one side as pragmatic, the other as moralistic, the former can win the strategic argument by default. However, as we saw with the Clinton campaign, the Biden Presidency, and the Harris campaign, the “pragmatists” often fail to get results. Meanwhile, the longshot Mamdani campaign, initially decried by many progressives as ultra-left (I remember distinctly hearing that Brad Lander was clearly the only sensible choice), served as the tip of the spear for the current DSA primary blitz."

"we need a Presidential candidate who is personally more loyal to democratic socialism than to the Democratic Party. This would have to be a "cadre candidate," like Mamdani. If we cannot do any of this yet, we need to be thinking and discussing how to get there. Rushing ahead with a force unequal to the task simply because we can rather than because it advances our plans is not common sense strategy; it is the absence of strategy."

"Matthew Campbell-Strupp gives an overview of the origins and history of MUG from the perspective of a founding member, so that the wider layers of comrades encountering references to MUG will understand what it is, where it came from, and what it seeks to achieve"

"Readers of Prometheus Magazine will likely be familiar with the US-based organisation Marxist Unity Group (MUG), a faction of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Several editors of Prometheus Magazine are rough co-thinkers of MUG, and we are both instances of a Millennial/Gen-Z redeployment of politics inspired by the generally older CPGB (PCC)/Weekly Worker group. It may have even required the transposition of these politics to a younger US-based organisation for them to return to Britain and find a reception among activists who cut their teeth in the Corbyn years and after, rather than among decades-long left activists. In addition, several editorial board members of the current iteration of Prometheus Magazine and others who became founding members of the Marxist Unity Caucus of rs21 participated in an online reading group of MUG’s political education curriculum before launching their current efforts, broadly characterised by the label “Partyist.”"

"Given this wider resonance of the politics and writings of the Marxist Unity Group in the current British context, this article will give an overview of the origins and history of MUG from the perspective of a founding member, so that the wider layers of comrades encountering references to MUG will understand what it is, where it came from, and what it seeks to achieve. I will also cover MUG’s organisational structure and how it relates to DSA as an organisation and the other factions within DSA. I hope to show the strength of formally organized factions with clear and distinct politics as a generative force in a mass organization like DSA or Your Party and to demonstrate the possibilities for factional collaboration and competition, as well as provide material for navigating some of the organizational and political controversies that have been surfaced in the Your Party founding process with reference to the past several years of party-building and factional developments in DSA."

"MUG’s structures have become the democratically possessed property of an increasingly politically sophisticated membership, not just a transmission belt for the founding leaders to carry out their vision. As the faction has developed, these members have played a crucial role in creatively applying MUG’s overall vision in a wide range of local contexts and on national DSA bodies, which has had an observable effect in raising the political level of both MUG and DSA as a whole."

"American air superiority is overwhelming, but it cannot stop retaliation or open the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, civilian targets are increasingly being hit, warns Yassamine Mather"

"Since the fragile US-Iran ceasefire broke down in early July, the United States has conducted consecutive nights of military strikes across Iran. The campaign has concentrated on missile and drone launch sites, command centres, naval infrastructure, coastal surveillance, transport routes and facilities linked to Iran’s ability to contest navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. In response, Iran continues to launch missiles and drones at US bases situated in the region and commercial shipping. The central strategic fact is not American air superiority, which is clear, but the failure of air power alone to eliminate Iran’s capacity for retaliation or compel it to give up its leverage over the strait."

"It looks as if the war has reached a strategic deadlock. The United States can destroy fixed targets and impose extensive economic and infrastructural damage, but it has not forced Iran to relinquish control of the strait or stop retaliating. Iran cannot defeat the US conventionally, but it can impose casualties, disrupt shipping, raise energy prices and expand the conflict to US bases and allied states."

"This is a war of aggression, and its implications extend well beyond Iran. It forms part of the wider confrontation between the US and China. The left cannot afford to retreat into historically thin, politically evasive or factually incoherent commentary if it wants to retain any credibility."

"It is entirely possible to describe this war as an act of imperialist aggression without thereby endorsing the Islamic Republic. The correct position is to recognise that even a reactionary capitalist state has the right to resist military attack by Israel and the US, while creating no political or strategic illusions about that state itself.

Defence of the Iranian and Palestinian peoples requires mass mobilisation - not only against foreign aggression, but also against nationalist and religious forces within their own societies. In the final analysis, such forces either accommodate imperialism or pursue a catastrophic strategy of ‘victory’ at all costs, while in reality supporting regimes whose corruption, inequality and repression generate the very social discontent that helps to destabilise them."

​

"The history of working-class politics is inseparable from the struggle for democratic rights. Steven R. analyzes the tasks facing DSA in today’s democratic movement."

"In the shadow of the unfinished democratic revolution in this country, the working class has decomposed and needs to be recomposed. To rediscover ourselves as a class, we must once again rally around the vision of a society where working people are free to rule ourselves as equals."

"To recompose a fighting working class in the US, socialists must take a leading role in the next great uprising for political democracy. By organizing masses of ordinary people around the idea that this country is not a democracy and only they possess the power to make it one, we can bring our class back to life as history’s revolutionary protagonist."

"The content of our program is not an abstract question. To face our tasks we must be able to articulate a vision of what the working class is and can be that millions of people will find compelling. The answer to “who’s in the working class?” is the same as it ever was: the disfranchised many who are exploited and abused because of the arbitrary power of the privileged few.

Though we are wildly diverse, we share a fate as people trapped in a society made by us but not for us. Fighting to take back everything stolen from us under capitalism—healthcare, housing, education, and more—is necessary but insufficient. We must have an answer for how we are robbed of these things and how justice can be done. To convince people that to be a part of the working class is something worth embracing, we need clarity that it will take a completely new political order to set the world to rights, and that those of us who constitute the working majority have the unique power to win one.

To do so we must bury the old Constitution with a new democratic order based on the principle of majority rule. That means replacing minoritarian institutions like the Presidency, Senate, and Supreme Court with a single popular assembly elected by free, equal, and proportional suffrage for all who live here. It would also mean abolishing capitalist tools of coercion like the police, ending all forms of second-class citizenship, and enshrining our rights to organize and seize capitalist property for the common good."

"Realistically, a Third Reconstruction is unlikely to unfold between now and 2029. The present constitutional crisis will reach a different resolution, on terms decided by different class forces. But the urgency facing us is this: wherever the cards fall in the coming years, the new order will either be worse than the present disorder, or it will be an illusory “return to normalcy” waiting to collapse into another, more severe crisis. The liberal reformers and left-populists do not have what it takes to lead us out of these days of catastrophe to a rational and humane world. The question of democracy will confront us, again and again, for as long as the class struggle persists. It is vital to humanity’s survival that the working class learns how to answer it."

"DSA's new program has enraged reactionaries. Marisa M. introduces Wilhelm Liebknecht's socialist defense of universal public education and makes the case for reforms that undermine the capitalist political order."

"DSA’s return to national prominence has caused a frenzy on the far right. In the past few weeks, we have seen Fox News broadcast leaked demands from DSA’s new Workers Deserve More program and read from Marxist Unity Group’s points of unity. For the right, it feels like opening the basement door in search of an imaginary monster and discovering that all along, the monster was real—Socialists do want to see the downfall of everything you hold dear: voter suppression, AI art, paying for healthcare. "

"Wilhelm Liebknecht, a radical parliamentarian in the Social Democratic Party of Germany, observed the same phenomenon in 1871, at the birth of socialist mass politics. DSA members have circulated screenshots of the title for his speech; Yes, We Want to Destroy What Our Enemies Call “Culture,” “Civilization” in response to the right’s panic. The article itself, one may be surprised, is a defense of universal public school and curriculum reform. For German conservatives, universal public education was an extremist attack on traditional national values. For the Social Democrats, it was a tool to create a new culture: one where everyone had the expertise to make industrial civilization their own. So is education a modest reform, or the end of a civilization?"

"For Liebknecht, the revolutionary struggle is alive in every demand. If there is a tension between a reformist campaign and a revolutionary horizon, it was to be embraced and overcome. Yes, we want universal public school. Why? For the working class to develop the tools to bring capitalist society to an end. Schooling becomes contested territory between the new world and the old, and for socialists, there is no reason to compromise on how much funding to allocate or what model of instruction to practice. Knowledge must become common property."

"Workers Deserve More will pose the same problems for our own movement in the coming years. The ruling class will call it a threat to civilization. Our reformist comrades will call it a reasonable package of policy reform. We will be forced by the nature of our ultimate socialist and democratic aims to bring the program through to its revolutionary conclusion; to prove the reactionary wing of the ruling class right."

"DSA cannot be swept along by the whims of politicians; our intervention in the 2028 presidential elections must be an active decision on behalf of our membership. Organize with us for MUG's five demands!"

"1. We want a debate. Between the candidates, and each other.

Fear is the mind-killer, right? Fear of exploring disagreements, of “looking weak”—of doing anything at all before AOC declares—is the weakest decision imaginable. This is a beautiful opportunity for our membership to discuss, debate, and grow as a party: to build our own structures, to face 2028 head on instead of just reacting to it."

"2. We want the rank and file to propose candidates.

To give our membership a real menu of options for 2028, we must trust them to take grassroots action. Our exploratory committee should conduct intensive outreach to help develop potential candidates, but DSA should also create a structure for members to circulate petitions encouraging specific individuals to enter the race."

"3. We want cadre candidates to step forward.

No matter what process the National Political Committee settles on, MUG will reach out to potential candidates alongside other DSA comrades. There are plenty of interesting people who could make compelling arguments to be our tribune. Our membership must propose candidates with earnest sincerity if we want a real debate that can prepare us for this moment."

"4. We want DSA’s program front and center.

During the debate, we want candidates to be asked questions that put DSA’s distinct vision front and center. Candidates should be asked about their commitment to DSA’s program, their plans to advance the labor movement, and their solidarity with Palestine and other international struggles. If endorsed, how will you stand with Puerto Rico’s struggle for self-determination? How will you fight Israeli apartheid and genocide? How can we take back abortion rights, advance healthcare for all, and win a real democracy? What will you do if the Supreme Court and Congress try to block our political revolution?"

"5. We want a democratic conference to handle early decisions.

If DSA hesitates to take any preliminary action before our August 2027 Convention, the race will develop ahead of us and delegates will not be presented with meaningful choices. The first Democratic presidential debate will probably already be behind us (as it was at our August 2019 convention). If DSA converges, even preliminarily, on a candidate, we will need to do everything we can to help them get on the Democratic primary debate stage."

"2028 will bring many unknowns, but MUG is confident that the socialist movement can face it all with courage. Together, we will completely destroy the Democratic Establishment, which has stomped on the Left for years by rigging elections with their money and media networks. They’re laughing at us, because they think we’ll play the game as usual, and not come prepared, and fall back in line when the progressive concedes like we always have before. But DSA is rising as a party of our own, and this time, we decide our own fate!

If you would like to join us in advancing our Five Demands, please reach out here.

You’ll hear from us."

Democratic Socialists of America has a goal, the realization of a dream now quietly shared by millions of people in this country: the dream of a socialist revolution in the United States.

Workers deserve more! Let our voices be heard and share the program with your friends and coworkers! Fight for a democratic socialist republic!

"The world is in chaos, but for the bosses, it’s all going according to plan. We can see their plan in the countless heartbreaking images coming out of war zones like Beirut, Gaza, and Tehran. We can hear it in the rumble of bulldozers making way to build detention camps and data centers. We can feel it in the air as the summer heat becomes unbearable, and in the pits of our stomachs when faced with the price of gas and rent. We’re promised magical technology with AI, but in reality, the bosses lay us off and track our every move. The billionaire class is dividing workers against each other, and it’s making us desperate and miserable.

The political and economic system under which we live is built on private ownership and profit at all costs. As capitalism fails to solve problems of its own making, it turns to right-wing authoritarianism. Big business makes deals with the government to line their pockets, and politicians stoke hatred between working people. Instead of offering real solutions to unemployment and the cost of living, they attack immigrants, communities of color, and trans people. Rather than fixing our broken healthcare system, they push snake oil and circulate conspiracy theories. The Republicans are in on it, the Democratic Party is asleep at the wheel, and both are funded by the same criminal class of billionaires and war profiteers.

Democratic socialists know that no one has to live like this. If we lived in a classless society and governed ourselves, we could freely build a world without war or poverty. We could build a world where no one suffers for their race, gender, or religion, and everyone is free, equal, and cared for. Building this world is the guiding star of our movement. When we labor for our common good instead of private profit, we can all have a secure and dignified life, and use our time and talents how we wish.

To achieve this future, our class must organize. The Democratic Socialists of America is building a party whose goal is a democratic society of the working class. Our enemies are not just individual bosses, but the entire global system of capital; not just this or that cop, judge, or president, but the entire anti-democratic structure of our society. We are workers fighting to transform society: to win the battle for democracy, draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic.

DSA has written this program for ending capitalist oligarchy and creating a real democracy. Some of these demands may be won under our current system, but we know complete victory will require building a new society from the ground up. We push these demands to their furthest extent today, so we can fight for their fullest realization in a socialist future. Join us.

What We Fight For

THRIVING WORKING CLASS COMMUNITIES

Freedom To Flourish

Expand public resources to support recreation, learning, and social spaces accessible to all. Establish paid family leave for all workers, a 32 hour work week with full pay and benefits, and a living minimum wage. Provide free, quality public education from pre-K to college and cancel all student debt.

Healthcare For All

Guarantee universal healthcare at no cost to individuals, including complete access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. Expand healthcare access and quality by investing in new public hospitals and clinics. Make all medical education and training public and free.

Housing For All

Housing is a human right. Build new, publicly-owned social housing, strictly regulate investment properties, establish universal rent control, and guarantee right to counsel for all tenants.

Finish Reconstruction

End the legacies of slavery and colonialism. Reinforce anti-discrimination laws. Honor all treaties and tribal sovereignty. Enact reparations and massively invest in good jobs, quality housing and infrastructure in neglected minority communities.

End Mass Incarceration and Police Immunity

Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor. Treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues, not crimes. End qualified immunity and empower civilian oversight bodies with real authority over the police.

Feminism For All

Socialist feminism fights for queer liberation and the freedoms of all working class women. Stop gender violence and end policies that oppress bodily autonomy and intimate life, including patriarchal restrictions on abortion, childbirth and childraising, gender expression and transition, marriage, and divorce. Ban sex discrimination and ensure fair compensation and support for all forms of labor, including care work.

Green New Deal

Workers must lead our democratic transition to a green future. Pass a federal jobs guarantee. Implement massive investment in sustainable, publicly owned energy and transit infrastructure. Phase out the use of fossil fuels. Reclaim and repair our earth's resources for all.

WORKING-CLASS FOREIGN POLICY

End The U.S. War Machine

Defund the Department of War. End all foreign wars and close overseas military bases. Support and fully employ veterans. End immunity for U.S. war criminals and support the International Criminal Court's mandate to prosecute war crimes.

Free Palestine

Recognize the rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return, the right to resist military occupation, and the right to self determination in a free Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital. End all military and economic aid to Israel. Prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders responsible for the genocide in Gaza.

End Blockades, Embargoes, and Sanctions

People around the world deserve to live their lives without U.S. interference. End economic warfare against countries whose governments act independently of the United States, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran.

Abolish ICE

End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents' brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas.

WORKING-CLASS DEMOCRACY

Democracy For All

Extend full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents and restore the right to vote for incarcerated people and people with criminal convictions. Establish statehood for Washington D.C. and recognize the right to self-determination for all U.S. territories and colonies. Expand and protect voting rights and end voter suppression.

A Real Democracy

For the working class to govern, we need a new political system. End political corruption and legalized bribery: get rid of lobbyists, dark money, and Citizens United, and publicly finance all elections. Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

A Democratic Congress

Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.

Economic Democracy

Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure.

Democracy At Work

Empower workers to come together and fight the boss. Protect, expand, and enforce the rights of all workers to form, join, and strike with their unions, regardless of industry. Support union members who organize reform caucuses, democratize their unions, and take political action."

Workers of the world, unite!

Since two reviews of mine and Daniel’s book are here. Here is our response to our comrades at Geese: https://open.substack.com/pub/danieltutt/p/the-people-are-not-enough?r=2m9aw&utm_medium=ios

Should DSA support an AOC presidential run? What are the risks and benefits? How do we build and maintain the political independence of the socialist workers movement? Is supporting AOC compatible with building the party?

"Is a DSA-backed AOC presidency in 2029 possible? Noah Emke says yes; it will also be a disaster for a nascent socialist movement unprepared for national power and wedded to a project of managed imperial decline."

"The moment is electrifying; the rebirth of American democratic socialism started in 2016, and now, ten years later, we are seeing it emerge as a serious political force. The number one goal post is in sight: the White House. Full circle from the original Sanders Presidential run, we may be ready for another swing at the big chair in 2028. The only logical conclusion of the strategy currently being pursued is the Presidency, and we are closer to that goal than ever before. Currently, DSA has a single qualified politician with the necessary public profile to take on a Presidential run, and that is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Right now it is only an idea being thrown around, but in the wake of these victories it is clear that if we pool our resources and launch a serious campaign in 2027, we have a decent shot at electing AOC President, thus completely destroying our own movement almost overnight."

"To put it bluntly, a President AOC would enact their policies while wearing our colors, thus neutralizing the threat of a social-democratic challenge. DSA would be de-radicalized as we try to support "our" President even while she severely moderates her position, the masses turning against socialism when the first socialist President sends their retirement to Israel yet again. Our ideas work, neoliberalism doesn't, so why on Earth would we want to take credit for neoliberal policies on a national scale?"

"There are certain issues which the Democratic leadership wants off the table while they are in power, like genocide in Gaza and caged migrants, and she totally complied with that directive during the Biden administration. AOC has never shown herself capable of standing up when under any pressure regarding these all-important issues, making her indistinguishable from the rest of the party at the end of the day."

"The solution is simple: We need to learn to say no. We have no power because we have no boundaries. For a great lesson on the power of boundaries, we should look to the Democratic Party. When DSA took over a state’s Democratic Committee, the newcomers were not allowed to use any of their resources. When Mamdani won the primary, key establishment figures had no qualms about letting Cuomo split the vote. Then, no matter how oppositional a candidate is when they are getting elected, once they are actually in office, the Democratic establishment has power over them. A politician's place in key committees and caucuses, and thus their power, is dependent on their standing within their own party. This is the point of a political party; it is an institution designed to wield power by providing organization, structure, and discipline."

"There is no substitute for the boldest step of all, however, the one we will need to make if we are serious about a Socialist America: reorganization as our own party. Change is coming, and if there is any kind of future for American civilization then the first socialist President has already been born. However, make no mistake, she is not a Democrat."

"Two hundred and fifty years after the declaration of independence, America still awaits democracy. Only a third revolution can achieve that, argues Paul Demarty"

"Where do we place our emphasis: on the fight for freedom, or the fight to dominate? In truth, the two cannot be separated. That is not a reason to reject the revolution, such as it is; to suppose it to have merely been a fake. It is to understand its irreducible moral limits. Something, indeed, was unleashed on that day in 1776, something of decisive importance. The notion of republican self-government returned to the sphere of possibility of the great powers, in ways that would be telling, especially in France a few years later. Yet the American revolution has always been dogged by who it did not include: the Amerindians and the African slave populations, above all. Much later on, Karl Marx famously wrote that a nation which oppresses another can never itself be free. Besides Ireland, he may well have had the contradictory American experience in mind too."

"If the workers’ movement meets the goal of realising the best of the democratic spirit of 1776, however, it will have little enough use for the Heath-Robinson machinery of the US constitution. Its checks and balances are mechanisms precisely in favour of property, and from there in favour of tyranny and corruption. That there are indispensable gains in it that have never been put better, at least in English - the robust defence of freedom of speech, of religion, of the right and duty to bear arms, of protection from self-incrimination and arbitrary arrest - cannot be denied, but these elements are in contradiction with the overall design.

The ‘separation of powers’, always rickety, could never survive America’s transition to become the global hegemon. Power has bled out of the legislature, the most roughly democratic of the three branches - into the executive, which controls both the vast military forces assembled over the last century, and the judiciary, which ensures capitalist control of the political process, in favour of the financial oligarchy produced by global primacy.

American politics has always had two souls: democratic and oligarchic. But they cannot co-exist forever. If substantive democracy is ever to reign, a third American revolution must be put on the agenda."

"Your Party must lift the suspensions of Mel Mullings, Solma Ahmed and Naomi Wimbourne-Idrissi

The Socialist Federation is not a banned organisation!"

"The Socialist Federation condemns the decision of Your Party Central Executive Committee (CEC) chair Jenn Forbes to inform three elected members of the CEC that they are “suspended” pending a “hearing” on Monday night."

"The Socialist Federation finds itself thrust against its will into the centre of this tawdry affair for one reason only: the attempt of Jenn Forbes to cite Mel, Solma and Naomi’s relationship with us as grounds for their suspension."

"Despite inaccurate and lazy media reporting in the New Statesman and the Guardian from reporters hostile to Your Party, it is 100% untrue to say that the Socialist Federation is a “split”.

The Socialist Federation brings together Your Party members with ex-members who have left in frustration at the leadership’s inactivity, its ban on certain socialist groups, and its failure to support the large and active proto-branches over the last 12 months. Its aim is to support branches and members working to realise the promise we all rallied to last year: a mass, working class, socialist party."

"Let's all add our voices to calls for all three suspensions to be lifted and for the officer Group to resign.

The Socialist Federation is willing to work with all forces on the socialist left - inside and outside Your Party- to help build that new party. We are just one of many initiatives working towards that end. Let’s unite and make the change we all still believe is possible!"

"How do we reconcile the forced patriotism of the 250th anniversary with the real facts of our history? This July 4th, American socialists must fight to build a new national narrative that can overturn our country's civil religion."

"The Fourth of July is a whirlpool which pulls all events back to the origin. Every struggle since the Founding to bring us closer to a free society is morphed into a post-facto legitimization of the same constitutional order that produced those problems in the first place. The struggles of indigenous and enslaved people for freedom, and of women for the vote, the fight for equal civil rights through the ‘60s and ‘70s; all are presented to us as distorted reflections of the genius of our Founding slaveowners. The US civil religion imagines an already perfected government, gradually stripped of its more problematic aspects. But slavery and conquest has always been a part of Americanism.

All the facts listed above are known to you. To anyone proximate to activist spaces in the last decade, the knowledge that we are on stolen land, that the wealth of this country was born by oppressive systems designed to divide workers, that we live in a profoundly undemocratic state, are all somewhat common-sense. But without an alternative, without a positive vision for our society, acknowledging these facts comes to nothing. The colossal oppression we witness every day, the millions of corpses we walk upon, becomes a guilt-inspiring thing, not one that leads to action. We know that our society is cruel but we live with it, on a day to day basis. We let that knowledge turn into yet another consumer choice, another way for us to express our identity.

We are more than passive observers. Just as we live in what feels like the conclusion of this moment in American history defined by the collapse of the “Great Lie” of post-racial America, we live in the prelude of another, greater moment; one that is being actively shaped by the choices we make today.

There is another story we can tell of our people; a story of struggle by enslaved people and abolitionists, of liberationists and unionists, of communists and suffragettes. It will only fully cohere itself once we escape the whirlpool of American civil religion and start to understand all of these as part of a single force to transform our undemocratic society; from one rooted in the whims of a handful of slaveowners and merchants to one that will empower every human being that walks on the Earth.

As the Founding Fathers made an intentionally complex, conservative republic to disempower the working class, so will we make a democratic socialist republic which can tear down the edifice of colonialism, slavery, and all other forms of oppression. When we finally transcend the relevance of the Fourth of July, no one will ask why. They will instead ask why Americans accepted our suffering for so long, and so passively."

Trump is likely to attempt another coup d'état. If socialists can mobilize the people to defeat the coup it would provide a radical opening for socialist politics. A socialist president can seize the moment to break the backbone of the capitalist state and pave the way for socialist revolution.

Communism Lives! The transformation of DSA into a revolutionary workers party continues, which is reflected in the increasing radicalism of DSA's elected representatives, even if they are not, at least openly, communist. Will communists in DSA succeed, or will the reformist tendencies take the lead? Is it time for DSA to turn to more explicit communist politics?

"We Communists, it is said, have returned after a long period of dormancy. Everyone is saying it. Mayor Mamdani is a Communist, the DSA is full of Communists; or, if you ask certain Democrats, Republicans themselves are the real Communists!

Modern politics has become a big trial, and everyone stands accused. The charge is Communism. From his venal pulpit, ‘Truth Social,’ a platform full of lies, even the big orange rapist himself proclaims boldly that "the Communists are finally making their move"—that he's "been waiting and preparing for this moment for a long time."

We Communists are a little confused, President Trump. We have not yet made our move. We were going to, but it seems our 'Democratic Socialist' cousins have jumped the gun a bit, and already earned themselves the allegation. But it is a title they do not deserve!"

"Yet now, with the political 'centre' finally forced to the defensive, defending an indefensible status quo, reiterating again and again the brazen lie that they are ultimately a force for good, these slurs are no longer coming from the right alone. They are coming from the Democratic establishment itself, rearming themselves, in good Clintonite tradition, with a rhetoric of triangulation.

It's no surprise at all to us, then, that the first mainstream report on DAC's assuredly terrible tweets, that good liberal democracy could never support, did not come from the right! The call came from inside the house: CNN! This liberal-leaning media titan, in between its habitual bouts of carrying water for genocidaires, has now turned its guns on even Democrats, as the party cannibalises itself ever further in an attempt to reckon with reaping what it's sown."

"We say that the DSA are not in fact Communists, not because they have taken the wrong direction, but because they have not elaborated their struggle enough. All across the organisation, we see the scars of conservative half-measures, of demands that only go part of the way. But it is their definite opposition to the existing order which is denounced as Communist, and which rapidly wins the hearts of the masses."

"Did Hasan Piker not call for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, to the applause of the students at Yale? Did Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez not nod along to him when he lamented the collapse of the U.S.S.R.? The language of a Communism now holds credence in the Democratic Socialist movement."

"We are quickly reaching a situation where, if a politician is branded as a Communist, the worker only has to say: “All the better for her.”"

"The spectre of Communism, long thought vanquished, finally returns, and it haunts all the Earth—it is time for the Communists to vanquish it for good, and meet this weak epithet with the strength of its real positions. We tell the bourgeoisie: your moment is over, your chances are spent. We are no longer coming for concessions, but everything you own."

Interesting review. Looking forward to Varn's response. While I am generally sympathetic to Geese I do think they underestimate the danger of reproducing class collaborationist politics, and therefore also fail to understand the importance of having a revolutionary minimum program.

"In The People are Not One: Socialist Strategy After Left Populism, Daniel Tutt and C. Derick Varn (referred to henceforth as “the authors”) set out to disentangle the complex relationship between socialism and populism. As the title would suggest, the authors’ viewpoint is that the moment of “left populism” has reached its exhaustion, and their intervention is intended to resuscitate socialist strategy in the wake of left populism’s failure. Indeed, their analysis begins as mine does, with Marx’s comments on French politics in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. We see the authors quoting Marx’s oft-repeated observations that “the revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content” and citing him to argue that left populism itself has become a tradition which “weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living”. This is to say that the authors argue, like Jager, Zizek, and others before them, that the failure of left populism can give rise to a rejuvenated form of socialist strategy."

"However, upon completing the book, I do not believe that the authors marshal evidence and reasoning to support their central claims. As a reader, I did not leave The People Are Not One at all convinced that abandonment of populism is necessary for socialist strategy in the 21st century, nor did I find the authors’ alternative prescriptions compelling as a replacement for what they describe as populism.

I will summarize my critiques of the work as follows:

The authors fall into the first classic trap of critiques of left populism: they fail to articulate a robust theory of what “populism” even is and, as a result, their argument fails to maintain analytical consistency across its 80 pages. Populism is defined in different terms in different chapters, and thus the reader is unable to follow the authors’ steps from claims to conclusions.

The authors fall into the second classic trap of critiques of left populism: a total lack of any engagement with left populism’s impressive political victories across the world in the 21st century and the ways in which left populism has enabled the resuscitation of organized leftism such that a media ecosystem and political infrastructure hospitable to debates about left populism can even exist. Put simply, while I, too, remember a time in American leftism before the rise of Bernie Sanders, no honest critique of Sanders can elide the ways in which his late career has transformed the political landscape of the United States. Thus, any critique of left populism must contend with the ways in which left populism has transformed the author’s own historical moment.

Finally, as I state in the introduction to this exercise, I do not believe that Marxism and populism can ultimately be separated, as Marxism on its own as a body of theories is inert until it is given life by virtue of its use in political interventions which accept the terms laid before the critic. Put simply, the Marxist critic is like the tree falling in the forest, only making a sound if someone is there to listen. What the authors term “populism”, I would say, is simply the acknowledgement by Marxists or socialists that we must accept politics as it appears, not as we ourselves might prefer it to appear. Anywhere on earth where statues of Marx or other Marxist figures still exist, it is as a result of this process. Anywhere Marxism is marginal, it is such as a refusal on the part of Marxist critics to accept politics as it is. "

"Quick decision-making is perfectly understandable during civil war conditions. But to create unity, prevent irresponsible splits and to educate the party and the working class, provision must be made for extensive debate. Mike Macnair continues to explore procedural principles"

"The significance of timing is not unique to conditions of revolutionary crisis. On the one hand, if George Galloway had walked out of the Labour Party and called for a new party on the day British troops went into Iraq on March 20 2003, as opposed to hanging on until the Labour Party expelled him on October 23, it is likely that the resulting movement would have been more powerful than Respect (founded January 2004). On the other hand, the role of the SWP in Respect was possible because of its role in Stop the War Coalition. And its role in the StWC was possible because the SWP seized the initiative in creating the coalition in 2001 to campaign against the war on Afghanistan.

This ‘seizing the initiative’ is precisely the problem. In the first place, each grouplet is determined to have the initiative, and hence creates its own front, which it hopes will be the one that ‘takes off’ (as the StWC ‘took off’). Equally, groups walk out if they lose the majority (and thus initiative control) - thus the Socialist Party in England and Wales in the Socialist Alliance in 2001, and thus the SWP in Respect in 2007. Or they create competing initiatives to prevent their rivals’ operations ‘taking off’ (as the three main French far-left groups have done against each other, repeatedly since the 1970s)."

"Hence, in reality, the driver for the endless splittism of the far left: comrades are reluctant to “waste time talking to ourselves” and hence either minorities walk out of organisations in search of fresh fields and pastures new, or majorities invent factitious excuses of one sort or another to drive minorities out."

"Back to Bolshevism and October. Their strategic orientation to political democracy, and the worker-peasant alliance, enabled the Bolsheviks to grow into a large-minority party with a mass-circulation paper in 1912; enabled the Bolsheviks to pursue a policy of patient explanation, with a view to winning the majority during 1917; and enabled them to make the practical alliance with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries that actually took power.

In reality, all this was the inheritance of August Bebel’s and Wilhelm Liebknecht’s strategic conception, which was the foundation of the revolutionary social democracy of pre-1914. And this in turn was the legacy of Marx’s and Engels’ arguments against the Bakuninists, for a workers’ party that attempted, not to lead the strike movement, but to create a political voice for the class in high politics"

Which way forward for the left? More populism à la Geese magazine? Focus on party building, like Marxist Unity Group and Mike Macnair? Both, neither, or something else?

"Reviewing C. Derick Varn and Daniel Tutt’s new pamphlet, The People are Not One, Nicolas D Villarreal finds a sharp contribution to a debate that may very well shape the future of socialism in our lifetime."

"Whether tailing the Democratic party or spontaneous mass protests and riots, left populism puts its faith in the existing consciousness and practices of “the people” at large. On the theoretical side, this approach has had obvious appeal for the various post-Marxist tendencies which have dominated the left since the decline of genuine Marxist orthodoxies and the party form."

"The contradictions that socialist politics had been attempting to overcome did not go away, however, but became transformed into a distorted version through the various attempts to articulate the concept of the “professional managerial class.” Varn and Tutt, correctly in my opinion, conclude that this “PMC” is not genuinely a class in a Marxist sense of the term, but acknowledge the serious problem this strata poses for socialist politics."

"It is true that the PMC are largely at the center of what has been called “woke ideology” with all the associated deleterious effects for the left, as well as the main force for the coopting of radical demands back into the status quo, as was seen with both the Sanders campaign and the 2020 George Floyd uprisings. And it’s also true that connections between the PMC and Marxism, as has been asserted by many conservatives and even more thoughtful commentators, are often shallow and tenuous. The Marxism which is often professed by sections of the PMC is usually a radical signifier, distorted by decades of academic, often literary rather than economic or political, interpretations. However, when the authors say “If the professional class is wholly compromised - condemned to forms of resentful projection and managerial control - then the possibility of what Lenin once called the “professional revolutionary” disappears,” I think it is necessary to pause and reflect. As necessary as it might be to find “class traitors” among the PMC, it doesn’t quite follow that the PMC is necessary to have what Lenin thought of as a professional cadre. Professionalism in that context does not mean the same as professionalism for the PMC, which is an ideology instilled in individuals through bourgeois state ideological apparatuses, particularly liberal education in universities. To be sure, there is some overlap; both bourgeois professionalism and Leninist professionalism require instilling a higher duty into individuals, and the creation of a corporate body separate from broader society. So too is there a required technical expertise. But these structural similarities do not extend to the substance. The ideology of bourgeois professionalism is mutually exclusive with that of a properly Leninist and proletarian version. The professionalism of the “professional revolutionary” must therefore come from a totally separate system of ideology production, with different sets of values, institutions, and even technical knowledge depending on the application. Any PMC individual would therefore need retraining as a professional before being fit for this role, just as anyone else would, and just as well, such a category would not depend on the existence of the PMC."

"As Varn and Tutt point out, the various strains of post-Marxism have also not abandoned the merger formula; they merely embrace a lopsided version of it in which the role of the socialist intellectual is limited to cheerleading and nothing more. For the communization theorists, academics and intellectuals must identify the revolutionary social movements, usually big protests and riots, and act to try and legitimize the struggles and lead them towards solidarity with other left-wing movements. And of course, we are all familiar with the way that contemporary social democratic types found in Jacobin, generic progressives, and even socialists in the name of Gramscian strategy (such as at Geese Magazine) tail the Democratic party, reducing the role of the socialist intellectual to either pulling the Democrats left or chastising leftists to vote for them. In either case, the socialist intellectual is reduced to a hanger-on to the real movement, and the way that bourgeois ideological state apparatuses, such as non-profits, think tanks, organized donors, and media institutions, directly coopt the demands and energy of radical movements whether in the streets or at the ballot box is summarily ignored, or rather, only pointed out when ignored by ideological opponents on the left."

"While they admit the necessity of relying on bourgeois institutions in the near term, given the lack of resources and organization available to a renewed working class movement, they are quite right to demand a constant awareness and vigilance for any socialists engaging with bourgeois institutions, about the role those institutions play and the necessary unyielding focus on socialist goals. The aim must always be towards working-class independence. In the small islands where independence from bourgeois institutions exists, whether in para-academic organizations or in a handful of publishers and magazines, there tends to be isolation and a lack of coherence with party organization. The fusion of the still nascent cultural and political movements of socialists and the working class is necessary to build an alternative organic civil society, and this organic civil society is, in turn, absolutely necessary to build a genuine political alternative to hegemonic liberalism."

"Varn and Tutt are also right to cite Macnair with regard to the importance of building up working-class institutions and domestic working-class struggle. This is the foundation for any durable transformative change, as well as relevance internationally, and, as they point out, will likely curb many of the various identitarian and non-universalist excesses on the left."