Bill Mullen has taken up one of the most important issues facing revolutionary socialists: how can a new revolutionary organization be built in the United States? His article, “Modest Proposals for a New Left” was recently published on the New Politics website. Bill begins by situating the overall context: “Leftists should celebrate Trump’s defeat but reject Biden’s victory.” He then zeroes in on the “two intersecting but divergent stories of American Socialism: one the ascent of the Democratic Socialists of America to becoming the largest Socialist group in the U.S. since at least the 1960s, and the other the collapse of the largest revolutionary socialist group in the U.S., the International Socialist Organization (or ISO) last year.”

The bulk of the article consists of ten proposals for a new organization:

1. A national assembly to build an independent socialist organization. Bill has a forceful definition of what independence means. “Independent in this context would mean independent not just of the Democratic Party but of either academic, publishing, or mutual aid institutions. Each and all of these have contributed in the past to split-thinking within revolutionary organizations about function, purpose, politics and loyalty.”                                              
2. The national assembly should debate the nature of a revolutionary organization. Bill argues that, “Prior to the collapse of the ISO, and in response in part to the rise of the DSA, this conversation was beginning. It is critical to resume. The strengths and weaknesses of both the Leninist democratic centralist model and now the dominant DSA model are well-known to the Left.” 
3. The assembly should take up what Bill sees as a coverup of racism and rape in the ISO. He calls for a “Truth and Reconciliation” process, presumably based on those in South Africa and the North of Ireland.
4. An online daily paper.
5. “A new framework is needed for the relationship between revolutionary socialism and electoral politics. Both the International Socialist “lesser of two evils” line and the DSA’s porous electoralism have revealed weaknesses…”.
6. A perspective on fascism.
7. A rural strategy.
8. Youth movement.
9. Political education
10. Abolitionism and an orientation to the Black Lives Matter Movement.

For a new organization

How should we evaluate all this? The first point to be made is that Bill’s call for a new revolutionary organization is a welcome one. Let’s take one example why. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) summer was the largest explosion of social discontent in recent memory. 

However, Marxists lacked an effective means of intervening in this situation. Small revolutionary groups did the best we could. We participated in all the actions. We analyzed them carefully. However, with some exceptions, it couldn’t really be said that we influenced the situation. The reason was not the failings of individuals or the errors of our ideas. We lacked a means of influencing the situation, a lever to change events—due to our small numbers and organizational fragmentation.

A strong revolutionary organization is exactly the lever that was needed, a Marxist organization with a national press, branches in major cities, a center to organize and coordinate activity, a critical mass of activists, and a means of organizing a democratic discussion on events and tasks.

The DSA—including its revolutionary socialist members—proved to be largely lacking on this front. While its members attended BLM demonstrations, they did so without promoting a presence of the DSA as an organization—often leaving direct intervention into the movement to the members of the Afrosocialist Caucus. One of the key principles of revolutionary socialists is that all members—not just members of color—must mobilize against racist violence wherever it happens.

A revolutionary organization could have organized its militants to act in a united and focused way in the tumult of the BLM demonstrations. It would have had the ability to share perspectives on the rapidly evolving situation, so that an overall picture could be formed. The purpose of this is not just to understand better, but to work out how to take the movement forward. Tactical proposals on how to advance the movement are only valuable if there exists an organization and militants to carry them out. Individual activists lack the striking power and impetus of an organization.

The main slogan of “defund the police” posed a host of questions: how will this be achieved? Can a capitalist society ever exist without the police? How should communities be defended?  Revolutionaries need a means of presenting our answers to these questions. Individual discussions and theoretical articles are completely insufficient. It means a newspaper, and its social media equivalents, expressing both our programmatic positions and strategic alternatives. These themes are, in turn, reinforced by banners, slogans, and activists. In this way, our revolutionary viewpoint can become known in the broader movement and eventually become a pole of attraction.

Hot to get to a new organization?

This summer’s events provided yet another example of the need for a revolutionary organization. Therefore, Bill is asking the right questions. However, our answers to some of these questions are different to his. This article will take up four of them: 1.) the ideas that a new revolutionary organization should be based on; 2.) Leninism; 3.) the Democratic Party, and 4.) the Truth and Reconciliation commission.

What should the new organization stand for?

Bill provides a number of policy priorities for the new group. But he doesn’t take up the general ideas which a new formation would be based upon. A political organization needs a compass, an overall direction and plan. This doesn’t mean having a line on everything under the sun, including all aspects of history and theory. It does mean some positive assertions that would guide the activity of the organization and its militants in the working class and in movements. A number of issues would seem crucial for revolutionaries in this country today.

• Revolutionary Marxism. The method, analysis, and strategy of Lenin, Trotsky, and Luxemburg has been verified and enriched by contemporary reality.
• Marxism is concrete. We can’t just repeat old truths. An accurate and rigorous view of trends and conjunctures must be made.
• Class independence. Our fundamental contention is that classes stand opposed to one another, both in the workplace and in politics. Opposition to the Democratic Party, which is a capitalist party, is the precondition for successful Marxist politics in this country.
• “A tribune of the people.” We place the fight against all forms of oppression at the heart of our politics. The struggles against racial, sexual, gender, and national oppression are integral components of the fight for workers’ power.
• “The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.” Our whole view of social change, and the society that we wish to build, is based on the self- activity of the working class. 

These ideas would provide a sense of direction and purpose for a new organization. They are the fundamental ideas that this website seeks to bring to the revolutionary left.

How could a socialist revolution actually happen?

The discussion on Leninism has nothing to do with “toyBolshevism” or “micro-sects” as this question is often posed within the contemporary left. The Leninist theory of organization flows from a whole view of how social change might come about. This view has the following components. One, that the source of inequality and oppression is the capitalist system organized and protected by the capitalist class. Two, the capitalist class has created a powerful state to maintain its rule over society. Three, the aim of that state is to thwart anything that would create a threat to the functioning of the system. This is generally done not only by seeking co-option and consent, but also by coercion and violence. Four, this state is never going to look on passively as fundamental social change takes place, but will use any means at its disposal to prevent it from succeeding.  Five, only a revolution of the working class has the force and capacity to defeat the capitalist class and state. Six, this revolution is based on mass strikes, insurrection, and the formation of workers councils. Finally, a process this tough and complex needs a well-organized mass revolutionary party to help it to victory. A looser and less defined movement would smash up on the rocks of class confrontation.

This “Bolshevik scenario” is what the discussion on socialist organizational forms is really all about. Those comrades who wish to see a “creative merging” of the best of the ISO and DSA traditions should answer some very basic questions. What is it about contemporary America that leads you to believe that a strategy of gradual, incremental, electoral change will succeed against the US capitalist class? Is it realistic to believe that the state apparatus will allow internal reform to undercut the domination of the capitalist class?  Is it feasible to believe that mutual aid and community bases would be allowed to overwhelm the capitalist state and economy? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if you believe that there is a theory of social change superior to Leninism, that is the need for an explicitly revolutionary organization in the here and now, what is it?

Let’s anticipate a possible objection here. An opponent of building a Leninist organization might argue, “I agree with you on the lessons of Chile, soviets, and all that. But revolution’s not even on the horizon now. Maybe you might be right about the need for a party in the distant future. But, for now, this idea will just lead to a sect.”

We would respond to such a comrade in the following way. We don’t agree with you and would like to discuss with you why. But if you see a revolutionary party as an eventual goal, shouldn’t you say so? Shouldn’t you try to explain to young activists why such a party is a crucial aspect of future social change? Shouldn’t you educate militants about how such a party could be built in the future? 

The Democrats: not the lesser evil?

Bill stakes out a political position that is to the left of the DSA leadership and to the right of the old ISO on questions of socialist organization. He extends this positioning to current US politics. Bill was quoted earlier saying, “Both the International Socialist “lesser of two evils” line and the DSA’s porous electoralism have revealed weaknesses.”

We have just been through a dramatic and closely watched Presidential election campaign. The 2020 Biden/Harris campaign provides an immediate and detailed example of the nature of the Democratic Party. It provides a perfect testing ground for different assessments of the Democratic Party. So, we can ask Bill a question. What exactly were the weaknesses of the “lesser of two evils” viewpoint in viewing the Biden campaign? In what exact ways did the 2020 campaign disprove the “two evils” theory?

The starting point of the revolutionary socialist view is that the Democratic Party is a fundamental and integral component of the US capitalist class. Our assessment of the Democrats was recently confirmed by an amazingly frank editorial in the British Financial Times. Marxists have sometimes described the British Financial Times newspaper as an “internal bulletin” of the ruling class. This means a newspaper in which the ruling class can openly debate their strategy without the need to prettify things for public consumption. The editorial, “Bidenomics Can Preserve Support for Capitalism” in the October 23 edition is a perfect example of this. 

The sub-heading reinforces the main point. “No Radical, the Democrat Wants to Save Markets by Softening Them”. The main point of the piece is that Biden’s policies are not only no threat to capitalism, they are, in fact, the best way of absorbing and assimilating any such threats

The final paragraph of the editorial makes the key conclusion. It is behind a paywall on the FT website, so it’s worth quoting fully:

Those in Mr. Biden’s fiscal crosshairs would be forgiven for reaching nervously for their wallets. But they should also take the long view. Since John Maynard Keynes, the best case for state intervention has not been to abolish the market, but to preserve public support for it. An unchecked capitalism would not survive the electorate’s judgment. Sure enough, there have been times since the 2008 crash when popular resentment of inequality, especially among the young, has threatened to spill over into demands for total systemic change. If implemented, Bidenomics would make life more burdensome for business and for high-earners. But it might also avert a larger reckoning further down the line.

This is a crystal clear example of how the ruling class sees the Democratic Party. It is the means to absorb and integrate popular discontent into the capitalist system. It is the way to “avert a larger reckoning.” A careful study of the recent elections confirms the revolutionary socialist view of the Democratic Party.

Can two activists who disagree both be honest revolutionaries?

Bill has called for a Truth and Reconciliation process to take up charges of racism and a rape cover-up in the ISO. Now, anything that undoes hostility and antagonism inside of the far left would be welcome. Anything that increases open discussion and friendly collaboration inside of the far left would be welcome.

We say this because we believe members of other socialist currents to be honest and principled activists with whom we happen to disagree on this or that issue. We say this because you don’t have to agree with our revolutionary Marxist views to be a dedicated opponent of injustice and oppression. We accept the revolutionary credentials of those we disagree with.

This is an issue on which the contemporary US left is, to be frank, terrible. The movement in this country has lost ground, not moved forward, on this issue. Grotesque slanders, that could have been in Moscow in 1937, that comrades are “rape apologists”, “racists”, or are “under the pressure of imperialism”, get thrown around. The essential precondition for any fruitful discussion is that one sees the other participants as honest revolutionaries with whom one has some disagreements. 

For obvious reasons, Bill has focused on the ISO. But the relevance of this point goes further. For example, in Socialist Action, comrades who disagreed with the leadership on Syria and Ukraine were accused of capitulating  to US imperialism.

No revolutionary should ever have to participate in a discussion in which they are accused of being, “racist”, “pro-imperialist” or any other such nonsense. Such charges shut down the discussion before it has begun and declare the accused comrades of being knowing or unknowing agents of the enemy.

It’s well known in the radical movement that during the dissolution of the ISO, the old leadership, the Steering Committee Minority, was charged not just with rape cover-up, but also with racism and Islamophobia. Racists and those covering up rape are obviously not just mistaken comrades; they are class enemies.  For anyone with experience on the US left, the total and complete stupidity and slander of these charges against the ISO leadership is obvious. The allegations stem from political hostility, not from reality.

This is the vantage point from which the Truth and Reconciliation proposal should be examined. Accepting that all participants are honest revolutionaries on the same side of the class line is the sine qua non, essential precondition, for any fruitful discussion. Any discussion of the demise of the ISO which does not accept the bona fides of the old Steering Committee Minority comrades as honest revolutionaries, and not racists and enemies, will be dead in the water.

If one accepts one’s opponents as honest revolutionaries, valuable discussions on any number of questions are possible: how to approach the DSA, what type of organization should we build, what balance sheet of our previous efforts should be made, what’s the correct way to fuse Marxism and liberation politics? If we think that comrades who have disagreements with us are racists or pro-imperialists then the discussion is over before it’s begun.

Destructive identity politics and “cancel culture”

This is what destroyed the ISO, at least on the surface. Over a period of years, the ISO’s membership increasingly accepted the framework of identity politics and cancel culture—a product of post-modern theory that prioritizes “microaggressions” over systemic oppression—despite the objections of the ISO’s elected leadership. Eventually, those who became the SC Majority also adopted this framework.

But identity politics and “call out culture” were not ends in themselves. Rather, they were weaponized to discredit the old guard members of the leadership to prevent them from arguing against the ISO’s rightward lurch toward the DSA—which most of the SC Majority personally entered after dissolving the ISO.

Thus, the debate ended before it even began, in an entirely undemocratic manner. One side of this important debate was prevented from making its case,allowing those from the SC Majority to pretend they were single-mindedly focused on ridding the ISO of its ostensibly “toxic culture”—without democratically debating whether to support Bernie Sanders in 2020. This tactic is often referred to as “bait and switch”.

In this important respect, referring to the ISO’s self-destruction as a “collapse” is entirely inaccurate. Collapse usually means slow, gradual, internal decay. Examples might be a bad tooth or a dilapidated farm shed. The ISO was deliberately and consciously terminated by people who wished to see its end.

Last but not least, Bill does not place the ISO’s destruction within the context of the crisis of virtually the entire revolutionary socialist left internationally—both as independent organizations and also as part of broader political parties, from Podemos to Syriza. There is something far beyond individual organizational deficiencies at work in this global phenomenon.

Until we address this issue, we cannot fully comprehend the factors in play at this political juncture.

Conclusion

The call for a new revolutionary organization is a timely one. We should work towards it by doing three things. First, by rejecting that other socialists are our class enemies and accepting that one can disagree even on fundamental issues without  being labeled a racist or a class enemy. Secondly, let’s continue to discuss our agreements and disagreements. Finally, let’s all work together against our common enemies. There’s no doubt that the last weeks of Trump and the first weeks of Biden will give us plenty of opportunities.