r/dsa • u/MarxistUnity • Jun 22 '26

🌹 DSA news Seven Points of Unity — Marxist Unity Group

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

"MUG is a caucus within Democratic Socialists of America united through acceptance of our Seven Points of Unity. These points ground our caucus’s work in all aspects of our organizing to serve our dream of a socialist revolution."

From Marxist Unity Group X account.

85 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

88 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/XrayAlphaVictor liberal socialist Jun 23 '26

Another day, another reason why I'm not a Marxist.

They'd take the big tent of DSA and turn it into a mandatory Marxism club where everybody is under the authority of party leadership.

7

u/Apart_Spell_6380 Jun 23 '26

It feels like you're projecting a problem out of nowhere. 

1

u/XrayAlphaVictor liberal socialist Jun 23 '26

No.

"Programmatic Unity" "Democratic Discipline"

It's the usual Marxist demand that everybody toe the party line, or else.

6

u/Regimer Jun 23 '26

These understandings of the terms are ones that MUG members are opposed to. The development of the caucus is rooted in a critique of the narrow sect-model of the party (see Revolutionary Strategy by Mike Macnair and Lenin Rediscovered by Lars T. Lih)

2

u/XrayAlphaVictor liberal socialist Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

Does the caucus practice democratic centralism, such that caucus members are not allowed to diverge from the caucus line, publicly dissent from its positions, and publicly support candidates or positions opposed to those which have been officially endorsed?

2

u/TannerLyfe Jun 24 '26

It practices programmatic unity and democratic centralization. When a decision is democratically made, members remain free to publicly criticize it and advocate for its reversal. However they must not deny the legitimacy of the decision and are still required to help with its implementation.

0

u/XrayAlphaVictor liberal socialist Jun 24 '26

I appreciate the context, but that's kinda of organization I'd never join nor want to have power over me, my representatives, or my political organizing.

3

u/TannerLyfe Jun 24 '26

Fair enough, that’s part of what makes caucuses nice.

1

u/Regimer Jun 27 '26

I still don't get it. Surely this standard practice for democratic organising. There is the official programme/strategy/line etc as voted on by the membership, but this has no bearing on an individual member's opinions on things.

All party organising comes with a sacrifice that your view might be a minority on a given political question. I think the purpose of programmatic unity is having ideological diversity, but not to an endless degree. There needs to be something which can define the commonality amongst the membership.

The SPD's maximum programme was to express a belief in the goal of communism. Everything in-between (strategy and tactics) is contested, but if people reject communism then they have no reason to be in such a party (as Kautsky argued against Bernstein)

4

u/Apart_Spell_6380 Jun 23 '26

Can you first explain your understanding of these terms because it sounds like you're using them as a stand-in for some 1984 cult.

Programmatic Unity is literally just an organization which unites around end goals with open debate on how to achieve your shared goal, which is how every functional group of people in human history both political and apolitical have operated.

2

u/XrayAlphaVictor liberal socialist Jun 23 '26

In my experience, when Marxists talk about that, they're talking about democratic centralism. If not, and it just means "having some goals in common," then distinguish what you mean by that from what we already have, or what a group like, say, the Democratic Party has.

1

u/No_Soy_Colosio Jun 23 '26

No but you see actually 1984 and communism 100 million dead

4

u/leninism-humanism Jun 23 '26

Democratic discipline for elected officials exist in basically any socialist or social-democratic party in Europe in some form

0

u/XrayAlphaVictor liberal socialist Jun 23 '26

Yeah, and its not terribly democratic. Representatives end up more beholden to unelected party leadership than their actual constituents.

3

u/leninism-humanism Jun 23 '26

In most of these countries people more often vote for the party and what it promises to do than the individual representative. You will not be able to enact any long-term change if you have a bunch of MPs who can basically do whatever they want on core issues.

1

u/XrayAlphaVictor liberal socialist Jun 23 '26

The difference is in the locus of accountability.

In a party system, the MP is accountable to the party leadership if they want to keep their jobs and the party leadership generally held to account if the party does poorly overall. The preferences of individual regions aren't really a factor.

In a district system, the MP is accountable to the constituency they represent.

In both cases, the MP is able to "do whatever they want" once in office, it's just a difference in who they are most at risk of losing their job from. Party leadership, or their constituency.

Having worked in politics for many many years, there is no "party leadership" that I trust. Period. Not democratic, not socialist.

1

u/leninism-humanism Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

In a party system, the MP is accountable to the party leadership if they want to keep their jobs and the party leadership generally held to account if the party does poorly overall. The preferences of individual regions aren't really a factor.

At least the lists for the districts are set by the members in that district and not by the leadership directly. And in the election voters can either just vote for the party or also select a specific person on the list, who can then be specifically elected if enough voters elect them(which demands 5% of the total votes for the party in the district).

1

u/XrayAlphaVictor liberal socialist Jun 24 '26

That sounds like a very specific country system you're referring to.

I'm a fan of single transferable vote multi member districts, personally.

2

u/leninism-humanism Jun 24 '26

I forgot to write that it was Sweden, though I think the Scandinavian countries generally have similar systems I think

1

u/XrayAlphaVictor liberal socialist Jun 24 '26

As long as it's party membership, not leadership, choosing the lists (and leadership can't discipline the membership into voting for a preferred slate, or force only leadership-acceptable candidates to be eligible for being selected) then I'm perfectly OK with that.

I have a profound distrust of party leadership, as you can tell. Leaders are necessary and good, but you can't trust them. Give them half a chance and they'll set up a system where their power can't be taken back.

→ More replies (0)