1. It is important to emphasize that the unique challenge revolutionary socialists face in the U.S. is that the Democratic Party is the only major political party in the U.S. beside the Republicans—in a power-sharing arrangement between the two ruling-class parties that has lasted for well over a century.

This has helped to contribute to the character of the class struggle in the U.S.—because having only a choice between two bourgeois parties leaves the working class without any means of organized electoral expression. For this reason, many workers disengage from the electoral process—which many so-called academic experts misinterpret as “apathy”. In reality, this is a recognition on the part of working-class nonvoters that the two main parties do not speak for them and never will.

This has resulted in a level of working-class combativity that has, at times, been unmatched internationally. As Leon Trotsky described in the 1934 essay, “If America should go communist,”

The American temperament is energetic and violent, and it will insist on breaking a good many dishes and upsetting a good many apple carts before communism is firmly established. Americans are enthusiasts and sportsmen before they are specialists and statesmen, and it would be contrary to the American tradition to make a major change without choosing sides and cracking heads.

Even though the Democrats posture as an opposition to the Republicans, they are equally bourgeois and therefore can never mount a genuine opposition. And they can never provide an effective resistance to Trumpism, because they have been equally responsible for implementing the neoliberal project in the U.S. for the last 50 years—successfully achieving an enormous upward transfer of wealth, both within the U.S. and globally. The Democrats have usually positioned themselves as a “Republican-Lite” alternative, with policies that are only slightly less draconian than Republicans, but at the same time allowing the Republicans to control the ever-rightward shifting political parameters.

2. From its beginning in the late 1970s, neoliberalism’s key components have included corporate deregulation and union busting, but it also attacked all the gains of the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s—which eroded and then reversed the gains of the left. During this decades-long political and ideological assault, the revolutionary left (with many organizations having flourished during the 1960s and 1970s) was also worn down and eventually mostly destroyed or imploded.

And liberal organizations, like mainstream feminists, who relied on electing Democrats to defend legal abortion, likewise found out the hard way that the Democrats are unwilling to actually fight for abortion rights on the streets. This is how we now found ourselves without the right to abortion after roughly five decades of legalization. Likewise, immigrants’ rights organizations that reached massive proportions in 2006, were absorbed into the Democratic Party shortly afterward. Democrats in Congress proceeded to do nothing for migrants in the following decade. Today, the Democrats’ positions on immigration are virtually identical to Republicans’.

The U.S. labor movement has also operated as a Democratic Party loyalist—and supporter of U.S. imperialism—since the Great Depression, to its own detriment. After an upsurge in strikes (many of them without leadership approval) between 1968 and 1974, union membership entered a downward spiral from which it has yet to recover. Today, union membership stands at 5.9 percent for private sector workers, with public sector workers at 32.2 percent. But even though Trump has targeted public sector unions for destruction, union leaders have done nothing beyond filing lawsuits and sending mass emails asking members to “call their elected representatives in Congress.”  

Perhaps more disturbing, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) president Sean O’Brien is an open supporter of Trump. Former rank and file reform group Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU, which was founded by revolutionaries from the International Socialists in the 1970s) backed O’Brien’s election, and is now unwilling to criticize him, even going so far as to ban some Teamsters who are critical of O’Brien from their recent convention. Much of the left, unfortunately, follows TDU’s lead.

Likewise, Steelworkers local USW 12-369 sent out a letter to its members supporting Trump and blaming the Democrats for the government shutdown using blunt nationalism:

October 16, 2025

TO: ALL MEMBERS

SUBJECT: GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN-USW MEMBERS BEING LAID OFF

The current government shutdown was created when Democrats decided to not approve a clean continuing resolution (CR), that was proposed by the Republicans. A clean resolution is defined as not increasing or decreasing the current funding.

The Democrats pushed forward their own CR with 1.5 trillion dollars in additional spending.

Some believe this was done intentionally to shut the government down, as they knew it was so outrageous that it would never be approved. This is similar to the “occupy wall street” protest that was meant to obstruct lawful programs within the government.

… I would strongly encourage all members to contact their Senators and Congressional Representatives to ask for the Democrats to withdraw their support of non-citizens over American Citizens.

Mike McWain

USW Local 12-369 President

3. The U.S. left today is also weakened as a result of its aptly-described “NGO-ization”—privately-funded, not-for profit, tax-exempt status—that dominates among ostensibly “activist” organizations. The leaders of most NGOs are tempted by large salaries and other “perks”, not to mention lack of accountability to their members, to lose sight of their original commitment to activism and become rapidly bureaucratized. Black Lives Matter (BLM), via its BLM Global Network Foundation, was plagued by scandals—including the purchase of a $6 million mansion in Los Angeles for the personal use of its leaders and a lawsuit against a BLM executive accused of “syphoning” over $10 million in donor funds.[1]

The U.S. left as a whole has been dominated by Democratic Party-supporting organizations since the New Deal. Today this includes the DSA, which is now at between 50,000 and 80,000 members (although a much smaller number are active members), but still the largest left organization by far.  “Indivisible” is by most estimates the largest activist organization, which has organized the massive “No King’s” rallies. Indivisible was founded by two Democratic Party congressional staffers in 2017. They were effective in opposing Trump during his first term—especially in the mobilization against the Republicans’ attempt repeal the Affordable Care Act. They are trying to run the same playbook in Trump 2.0. But Indivisible is beholden to the Democratic Party and allows the Democrats to set the parameters of its demands. For this reason, the No King’s protests have remained silent on issues of U.S. imperialism, from Palestine to Venezuela.

Most of the Democratic Party-led opposition is focused on the 2026 midterm elections. If the Democrats win one or both Houses of Congress (not a sure thing, despite Trump’s unpopularity), what will they do? If past practice is any indication, they should not be expected to exercise significant congressional power against Trump and the Supreme Court. Any financial cuts to ICE or curbing of ICE’s brutality will be minimal (unless a powerful movement forces the Democrats to shift course). Even with ICE and Border Patrol currently occupying Chicago, Illinois’ Democratic governor (and presidential hopeful) J.B. Pritzker claims to strongly oppose ICE yet has issued no indictments of ICE agents for murder, civil rights violations, etc.—and is allowing his own State police force to “protect” ICE agents from protesters—in other words to attack protesters.

There is also the possibility that the Democrats will not win the 2026 midterm elections (even if they don’t win because of Republican Party gerrymandering), which will leave the opposition demoralized.

4. The DSA’s successes highlight the degree to which much of the U.S. population has shifted left politically. And Trump’s brutal witch hunt against immigrants, along with his authoritarian power grabs and promotion of far-right white nationalism have accelerated this shift leftward. Jared Abbott, a researcher at the Center for Working-Class Politics, was part of a 2025 study that found only 29 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of the Democrats. Abbott recently reported in Jacobin, “Among Democratic and independent respondents [in Rust Belt states], the most common critique of the Democratic Party was its perceived inability to carry out policies that help ordinary people.”[2] An opinion poll released on November 3 showed The CNN poll, conducted by SSRS, found that Trump’s approval rating sank to 37%, marking the lowest point in CNN polling of his second term. His disapproval rating also reached 63%, the highest of either of his terms. And nearly 70 percent of Democrats and Independents believe Democrats are not doing enough to oppose Trump.

As Fairness and Accuracy in reporting recently noted about public support for progressive demands: “Polls regularly show large majorities in favor of a wealth tax, a $15 or higher minimum wage, and Medicare for All, all key progressive demands that corporate media regularly lambaste.”[3]

AOC and Bernie Sanders drew thousands at a time to their “Fighting Oligarchy” Tour earlier this year. According to YouGov.com, polls show that Bernie Sanders (who calls himself an independent but caucuses with and campaigns for Democrats) is the most popular active politician in the U.S. today.[4] The Democratic Socialist and pro-Palestinian Zohran Mamdani’s rise as the winner of the November 4 mayoral election in NYC speaks volumes to this shift in the electorate in one of the most historically pro-Zionist voting districts in the U.S. His campaign was focused on freezing the rent, making city buses free and adding 2 percent to the tax bills of the wealthiest 1 percent.

Mamdani’s election is a very exciting development, but he will now face very intense pressure from the political establishment to accommodate.

5. And so far, the Democratic Party establishment has not followed the electorate leftward. The New York Times (which is the liberal establishment’s mouthpiece) responded to the massive turnout in October 18’s No King’s Day (and Mamdani’s progressive campaign) with an editorial slamming progressives in the Party, claiming, “The Partisans Are Wrong: Moving to the Center Is the Way to Win.”

And after Mamdani won, the New York Times offered the following advice to him:

“He should start by building a leadership team light on democratic socialists,” the board wrote, “and heavy on officials with records of accomplishment and proven management skills.”

Yet exit polling showed that 24 percent of New York voters are also self-described democratic socialists, like Mamdani—and they made up roughly 41 percent of those who voted for him.

Although Mamdani’s main campaign promise was free and fast buses, The Times instructed him to abandon the “free” fare proposal. “A better idea,” the board suggested, is to offer “a reduced fare” on just some routes.”[5]

Thus, progressives who remain loyal to the Democratic Party while criticizing its establishment are acting as a “double-edged sword”: on the one hand, giving voice to masses of people who also are fed up with Democrats, but at the same time holding back the possibilities for actually breaking with the Democrats and forming a viable third-party alternative. This is true of the DSA and also Indivisible, as evidenced by the No King’s limited set of demands.

Long-standing revolutionary socialist organization Solidarity held back from giving Mamdani an uncritical endorsement —because he is running as a Democrat.[6]  Longtime revolutionary socialist Dan La Botz, for example, posted a strong disagreement with his own organization, Solidarity, when it held back from giving Mamdani an uncritical endorsement because he is running as a Democrat, stating,

Mamdani clearly chose to run inside the Democratic Party, not to take an independent course. We don’t agree with this perspective; in fact, we see it as a contradiction with the campaign’s demands.

…Mamdani was always committed to running as a candidate inside the Democratic Party and is quite likely building his governing coalition with elements of the party apparatus who will undoubtedly insist on stripping away the radical thrust of his program.

…it is much more likely that the pressures of governing and the demands of the Democratic establishment will erode the strength of Mamdani and his movement.

La Botz reiterated that he is in favor of a so-called “inside-outside” strategy:

The Democratic Party is a capitalist party, and I oppose as a general policy voting for the Democrats as a lesser evil. Like my comrades, I would love to see an independent, working-class-based political party committed to democratic socialism. I think such a party is in fact likely to come about through fights for progressive and leftwing positions within the Democratic Party.[7]

The problem with that logic—and history has proven it time and again—is that the left doesn’t dismantle the Democratic Party establishment from within; no, the Democratic Party dismantles the left until it is no longer recognizable as such.

Even AOC and Bernie Sanders contradict their own progressive reputations–for example when several years ago, AOC joined the Biden administration in forcing railroad workers to go back to work after a large majority had rejected their union contract, when the Biden administration prevented them from going on strike.

And just recently Sanders praised Trump for “securing the U.S. border with Mexico” saying “If you don’t have any borders, you don’t have a nation,” “Trump did a better job. I don’t like Trump, but we should have a secure border. It ain’t that hard to do. Biden didn’t do it.”

So, it is fair to say that AOC (who is very likely to advance up the Party apparatus in coming years) and Sanders cannot be described as consistently oppositional. Hence, they act as a double-edged sword.

The mainstream resistance to Trump bases itself on the idea that there can be a constitutional solution to this constitutional crisis, e.g., that legal court battles, verbal sparring, and speaking at large rallies, all bent toward voting for Democrats in midterms and the next presidential election, will do the trick. But if Trump is really implementing an authoritarian reordering of the political system, these methods are simply not enough. Democrats are behaving almost as if it is still politics as usual. But, since they reflect bourgeois interests, they are not willing to unleash the mass power of ordinary people to confront the crisis, which requires action that goes far beyond peaceful protest and legal challenges. Bourgeois democracy, however limited, was created by revolutionary means and by mass struggle—but the bourgeoisie today is more afraid of mass action than it is of Trump’s authoritarianism.

6. it is very important to note that Trump’s attacks on migrants have shifted away from the U.S.-Mexico border, instead targeting migrant families who have lived for years, even decades, in communities across the U.S. This means that they have not only extended family ties but also long-standing relationships with their neighbors, schoolmates and workmates. This change has also deepened the commitment of these migrant families’ neighbors to protect them from ICE agents.

Perhaps the most promising characteristic of the rising resistance in the U.S. in Trump’s second term is the self-organized “rapid response networks”, launched by immigrants’ rights activists, neighborhood by neighborhood, to combat ICE thugs across cities and suburbs.

These neighborhood-based networks have been around as long as ICE, but they have mushroomed since Trump took office in January—to serve the many needs of the fearful migrant population. People volunteer to help distribute copies of “Know your rights” brochures in immigrant communities. They set up phone and internet hotlines to notify the network of a suspected ICE sighting; once they have verified it, they then broadcast it to the entire neighborhood. They also hand out whistle kits to everyone in the neighborhood, along with the different types of signals to use when ICE has been spotted in the area verses when ICE is attacking someone in the immediate vicinity. Those driving cars beep their horns if they see ICE goons in the area.

Many migrants are too afraid to leave their homes to go grocery shopping, or to bring their children to school, so the network assigns volunteers to individual families to go and buy groceries, accompany their kids, and help with the other basic necessities of life.

Likewise, when Trump let federal government food assistance stop on November 1 due to the government shut down, neighborhood groups self-organized food donations for families who lost their government aid.

This sort of neighborhood network defense has not existed in the US for a long time. These new networks are reminiscent of the Great Depression, when neighbors would come running when a family was getting evicted from their home by the police­—and the neighbors would move the furniture back in as soon as the police moved it out.

The people who filled streets across the country on the October 18 No Kings Day were many new to activism, with a sense of urgency because about the authoritarianism rapidly descending on U.S. society. But the potential of this rising protest movement—including not only the mass demonstrations but also the grassroots activism that is laying the basis for long-term organizing—can easily be smothered by the limitations imposed by the Democratic Party. This is why the Democratic Party has for almost a full century been called “the graveyard of social movements” by the revolutionary left. It is only in the last decade—especially since Trump’s first campaign—that many revolutionaries have adopted the position expressed by Dan La Botz-—which has only accelerated the decline of the revolutionary left itself. This is why when this wing of the left claims that history has proven that it is “impossible” to form as third party in the U.S, they are just reestablishing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A healthy development would be the emergence of (a) new activist organization(s) that break(s) from the current Democratic Party/NGO-dominated milieu to really put forward an agenda that meets the moment and galvanizes people—such as the IWW in the early 20th century. Today’s “left” needs to move from an overwhelmingly defensive posture toward Trump to projecting a vision of “another world is possible.”

The local news in Chicago recently featured an article on two young National Guard members—one male and one female who is also an immigrant—who publicly stated that if they were called up to occupy a US city, they would refuse. Asked if she would refuse a direct order to deploy to Chicago, the woman didn’t hesitate. “Absolutely. I would definitely say no,” she said. “I’m not going to go against my community members, my family and my culture. I believe this is the time to be on the right side of history.”

“Look at 1930s, 1940s Germany,” the man said. “There is a point where if you didn’t stand up to the Gestapo, are you just actively one of them now?”

It’s very difficult to predict where the resistance will expand in the future–because it has been a very, very long time since US workers have actually been combative. And during that long time, not only unions but traditions of struggle have been crushed and need to be rebuilt.

The number of working-class people becoming radicalized by Trump’s presidency shows that the human material exists to build the kind of movements we need to effect transformative change, based on the politics of solidarity and internationalism. But realizing that potential, as we all know, will require the rebuilding of the revolutionary left—which essentially means it has to rebuilt from scratch.

This is an edited version of a presentation given in Geneva, Switzerland on Sunday, November 9 as part of a seminar organized by the leftist web site Alencontre.com.

---

[1] Najee Ali, “The Controversy Surrounding Patrisse Cullors and the Black Lives Matter Movement,” Ebony, June 5, 2021.

[2] Jared Abbott, “Why Americans Hate the Democratic Party,” at https://jacobin.com/2025/10/democratic-party-polling-rust-belt.

[3] Julie Hollar, “As Millions March Against Fascism, NYT Warns Against Progressives”, at https://fair.org/home/as-millions-march-against-fascism-nyt-warns-against-progressives/.

[4] YouGov/U.S. at https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52037-what-americans-think-of-120-political-leaders.

[5] The Editorial Board, “6 Ways Mayor Mamdani Can Improve New York,” at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/04/opinion/mayor-mamdani-new-york-election.html, November 4, 2025.

[6] https://solidarity-us.org/the-zohran-mamdani-campaign-solidarity-with-the-movement-critical-notes-on-the-future/.

[7] Dan La Botz, “I support Mamdani, the Democratic Party candidate for NYC mayor — period,” October 18, 2025, at https://solidarity-us.org/i-support-mamdani-the-democratic-party-candidate-for-nyc-mayor-period/.