Dead Generations and Unknown Continents: Reflections on Left Unity


In 1881, just two years before his death, the ail­ing Karl Marx received a let­ter from a young social­ist, Fer­di­nand Dome­la Nieuwen­huis, ask­ing for his opin­ion about the call to rebuild the Inter­na­tion­al Workingmen’s Asso­ci­a­tion, the most advanced exper­i­ment in Left Uni­ty up to that date. Marx, who had been involved with such par­ties as the Com­mu­nist League and the Ger­man Social Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, was no ene­my of orga­ni­za­tion. But his respon­se was blunt: “It is my con­vic­tion that the crit­i­cal junc­ture for a new Inter­na­tion­al Workingmen’s Asso­ci­a­tion has not yet arrived and for this rea­son I regard all work­ers’ con­gress­es, par­tic­u­lar­ly social­ist con­gress­es, in so far as they are not relat­ed to the imme­di­ate given con­di­tions in this or that par­tic­u­lar nation, as not mere­ly use­less but harm­ful. They will always fade away in innu­mer­able stale gen­er­alised banal­i­ties.” When not explic­it­ly tied to the con­crete strug­gles of a real his­tor­i­cal con­junc­ture, the ques­tion of Left Uni­ty can be noth­ing oth­er than the “state­ment of a phan­tom prob­lem to which the only answer can be – the crit­i­cism of the ques­tion itself.”

Dead gen­er­a­tions

In his pro­gram­mat­ic piece in Jacobin, Bhaskar Sunkara describes the shape of con­tem­po­rary Left Uni­ty: “the con­ver­gence of Amer­i­can social­ists com­mit­ted to non-sec­tar­i­an orga­ni­za­tion under the aus­pices of an over­ar­ch­ing demo­c­ra­t­ic struc­ture.” It would be glib to just dis­miss this out of hand – alongside increased expo­sure of the Left in the main­stream media, such a struc­ture could be a good sign. But the way this strat­e­gy is being pur­sued leaves many fun­da­men­tal ques­tions unan­swered.

There are sev­er­al dom­i­nant posi­tions on Left Uni­ty in the Unit­ed States today. Mark Solomon, whose posi­tion paper served as the basis for the much-pub­li­cized “Con­ver­sa­tion on Left Uni­ty” in New York, has advanced per­haps the most promi­nent pro­pos­al. Observ­ing that rad­i­cals have always played “essen­tial roles in influ­enc­ing, guid­ing and con­sol­i­dat­ing broad cur­rents for social change,” he argues that a strong social­ist pres­ence has nev­er been more need­ed than today. And with gen­er­al inter­est in social­ism on the rise in recent years, it’s time to put aside our dif­fer­ences and come togeth­er, prefer­ably in an entire­ly new orga­ni­za­tion.

Jacobin’s posi­tion on Left Uni­ty is close to Solomon’s. Sunkara, in fact, admit­ted at the New York con­ver­sa­tion that he found him­self “in almost entire agree­ment” with Solomon’s pro­pos­al for Left Uni­ty. Echo­ing Solomon, the Jacobin man­i­festo has called for the “uni­fi­ca­tion of the many social­ist orga­ni­za­tions with sim­i­lar polit­i­cal ori­en­ta­tions into one larg­er body.” A few things set Jacobin apart. There’s a greater empha­sis on edu­cat­ing the broad­er pub­lic, a more explic­it com­mit­ment to rad­i­cal­iz­ing youth, and the begin­nings of real analy­ses into the strug­gles of pre­vi­ous­ly over­looked sec­tors of the Amer­i­can work­ing class. What remains most dis­tinc­tive about Jacobin’s stance on Left Uni­ty, how­ev­er, is its gen­er­al sense of urgen­cy: not only is this project pos­si­ble, Jacobin assures its read­ers, but it can be real­ized now.

But this pro­gram has also been insert­ed into the famil­iar post-Occu­py polemics again­st “anar­chism.” Although Jodi Dean has expressed inter­est in “a rad­i­cal left coali­tion, some­thing like SYRIZA,” her hopes lie main­ly, like Solomon and Sunkara, in an entire­ly new orga­ni­za­tion. Unlike the­se more astute politi­cians, how­ev­er, she blunt­ly calls this the Par­ty. Her stance is far closer to that tra­di­tion which advo­cates firm lead­er­ship, cen­tral­iza­tion, strict dis­ci­pline, pro­grams, and rules – char­ac­ter­is­tics that right­ful­ly make many uneasy. She regards the fail­ures of Occu­py as proof of the con­tin­ued indis­pens­abil­i­ty of pre­cise­ly this kind of orga­ni­za­tion: “Main­tain­ing the polit­i­cal open­ing Occu­py cre­at­ed won’t be easy, but it will be pos­si­ble if and as the move­ment shapes itself as a new com­mu­nist par­ty.” For Dean, it’s time for a revamped van­guard par­ty.

Beneath their dif­fer­ences, how­ev­er, lies a com­mon and dis­avowed point of ref­er­ence. Although all three of the­se posi­tions call for an entire­ly new par­ty fit for our unique his­tor­i­cal con­di­tions, they all repeat the terms of a past his­tor­i­cal expe­ri­ence: the Pop­u­lar Front in the 1930s.

Of course, this con­ti­nu­ity is vis­i­ble for those who can read between the lines. Solomon, a pro­fes­sion­al his­to­ri­an, has writ­ten approv­ing­ly of the Pop­u­lar Front strat­e­gy, and it’s clear that it implic­it­ly grounds the argu­ments made in his call for Left Uni­ty. And when pressed to con­cretize her hero­ic vision of the new par­ty, even Jodi Dean can only offer the rather pro­saic exam­ple of “the CPUSA in the 1930s, but less cen­tral­ized (or, a more dynam­ic and respon­sive rela­tion between cells and cen­ters).”

Jacobin has been per­haps the most vocal in its insis­tence that the slo­gan of Left Uni­ty isn’t just about the for­ma­tion of a new social­ist par­ty in this coun­try, but a call for a broad alliance between all the forces of the wider Left, includ­ing social democ­rats, left-lib­er­als, and oth­er pro­po­nents of the wel­fare state – the core prin­ci­ple of the his­tor­i­cal Pop­u­lar Front. It has actu­al­ly fused, in the­o­ry and in prac­tice, the two projects into one: build­ing a new social­ist par­ty becomes the means to build­ing a new “New Deal Coali­tion,” and per­haps vice ver­sa. The pri­ma­ry objec­tive of any new social­ist par­ty, accord­ing to Jacobin, will be to ally itself with ele­ments of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty known as “wel­fare lib­er­als,” and strength­en the Amer­i­can wel­fare state. And Sunkara has already begun mak­ing over­tures to lib­er­als – even though the social­ists he rep­re­sents have no par­ty to speak of.

What accounts for this active for­get­ting? Per­haps explic­it ref­er­ences to the peri­od have been avoid­ed because of its bad rep­u­ta­tion. After all, the mod­er­ate Left has a long­stand­ing obses­sion with pro­claim­ing its anti-Stal­in­ism at every turn; and since the Pop­u­lar Front has long been crit­i­cized not only as Stal­in­ist, but also as a reformist betray­al, explic­it ref­er­ences could make for bad pub­lic­i­ty. Or per­haps the mem­o­ry of the Pop­u­lar Front is dis­avowed because of the ulti­mate fail­ure of its stat­ed objec­tives: the Left was oblit­er­at­ed in Spain, fas­cism emerged tri­umphant in Europe, and coali­tion part­ners turned on each oth­er every­where. For what­ev­er rea­son, the dom­i­nant posi­tions on Left Uni­ty today have been forged inde­pen­dent­ly of an explic­it analy­sis of the his­tor­i­cal con­junc­ture that has most pow­er­ful­ly defined them.

Back to the Pop­u­lar Front

What­ev­er the polit­i­cal ambi­gu­i­ties of the his­tor­i­cal Pop­u­lar Front – a peri­od marked both by major vic­to­ries won by mass upris­ings, and their sup­pres­sion by bureau­crat­ic reformists – the new pro­pos­als for Left Uni­ty invert its his­tor­i­cal and log­i­cal sequence. The Pop­u­lar Front was orig­i­nal­ly a polit­i­cal strat­e­gy pur­sued by Com­mu­nist Par­ties in the 1930s. From around 1928 to 1935 the Com­mu­nist Inter­na­tion­al had con­vinced itself that world his­to­ry had entered a “Third Peri­od” marked by cri­sis, insta­bil­i­ty, and pro­le­tar­i­an insur­gen­cy. Com­pelled to reck­on with the wors­en­ing depres­sion, mas­sive unem­ploy­ment, and the resur­gence of the Right, com­mu­nists attempt­ed to change their strat­e­gy, which had hith­er­to been rigid­ly anchored to work­place orga­ni­za­tion, in accor­dance with the changes in the work­ing class. This led to gen­uine­ly cre­ative orga­niz­ing: sharecropper’s unions and tenant’s move­ments in the Unit­ed States, sex­u­al health clin­ics in Ger­many, and unem­ployed move­ments every­where. But it also called for mil­i­tant agi­ta­tion, con­dem­na­tion of all reformist ini­tia­tives, and prepa­ra­tion for the immi­nent rev­o­lu­tion: alliances were bro­ken, unions were split, and oth­er Left­ists denounced as “social fas­cists.” After a series of ter­ri­ble set­backs – the rise of Hitler in Jan­u­ary 1933, a coup in Aus­tria the fol­low­ing year – the Com­intern even­tu­al­ly con­clud­ed that Third Peri­od Tac­tics had actu­al­ly wors­ened, rather than reversed, the gen­er­al decline of the com­mu­nist move­ment as whole.

A new strat­e­gy was offi­cial­ly adopt­ed in 1935. The com­mu­nists would join with oth­er “forces of labor,” like social­ists and social democ­rats, to form a Unit­ed Front. This would then form the nucle­us of a Pop­u­lar Front that was to include the Cen­ter-Left and per­haps even the Cen­ter. The goal was to check the Right, win sig­nif­i­cant gains for the work­ing class, and improve the stand­ing of the Com­mu­nist Par­ties in a world where com­mu­nism appeared to be on the wane. Com­mu­nist Par­ties were instruct­ed to reverse their pre­vi­ous poli­cies; the new watch­word was Left Uni­ty.

Pop­u­lar Fronts were attempt­ed in most coun­tries that still had some kind of Com­mu­nist Par­ty, like the Unit­ed States, but Com­intern had its eyes on France. After 1933, when Hitler oblit­er­at­ed the most vig­or­ous labor move­ment in Europe, the French Com­mu­nist Par­ty (PCF) became the largest Com­mu­nist Par­ty out­side the Sovi­et Union. More­over, France was a coun­try with a pro­found, though very diverse, rev­o­lu­tion­ary tra­di­tion, which might be amenable to such a call for Left Uni­ty. Last­ly, as his­to­ri­an Julian Jack­son has shown, even before this offi­cial shift in pol­i­cy was tak­en, the French work­ing class had already begun, on its own, to push for just such a unit­ed strug­gle again­st fas­cism. For the­se rea­sons, con­tem­po­raries came to see France as a sig­nif­i­cant test case for this new strat­e­gy. While pro­po­nents of Left Uni­ty today are right to focus on the US and its unique con­di­tions, we should also con­sid­er oth­er expe­ri­ences, since the broad­er project of Left Uni­ty has always been inter­na­tion­al, like social­ism itself.

A cou­ple years after the for­mal adop­tion of the Pop­u­lar Front – after the elec­tion of a social­ist pres­i­dent, a strike wave, and a series of unprece­dent­ed reforms – the strat­e­gy was hailed as a tremen­dous vic­to­ry, for both the French work­ing class and for the PCF. Work­ers won paid vaca­tions, a forty-hour work week, wage increas­es, and bet­ter con­di­tions. As for the PCF, which had been by far the small­est part­ner in the coali­tion, it swelled in mem­ber­ship, emerg­ing, for per­haps the first time, as a pre­vail­ing force in French polit­i­cal life.

In many ways, the Pop­u­lar Front tem­porar­i­ly saved the far left in France, as it did in a num­ber of coun­tries, includ­ing the US. But one of the main rea­sons why the call for Left Uni­ty proved effec­tive was because the PCF could be tak­en seri­ous­ly as a coali­tion part­ner. The par­ty was admit­ted­ly quite small in ear­ly 1935, hav­ing been bat­tered and mar­gin­al­ized by Third Peri­od tac­tics, but it still had a vibrant tra­di­tion of rad­i­cal­ism, deep roots in pro­le­tar­i­an com­mu­ni­ties, and a real pres­ence on the shop floor. It had helped orga­nize some of the most dynam­ic strug­gles of the time. The PCF, in short, had some­thing to con­tribute to a coali­tion.

Today, on the oth­er hand, social­ists have no con­stituen­cy to offer social democ­rats, left-lib­er­als, or oth­ers on the broad­er Left. The mem­o­ry of com­mu­nists orga­niz­ing march­es, strikes, and fac­to­ry occu­pa­tions as part of broad­er Left­ist ini­tia­tives is a pow­er­ful one, but no longer a real­i­ty. Try­ing to con­vince “wel­fare lib­er­als” to ditch their own par­ty to work with some dis­or­ga­nized social­ists with no organ­ic con­nec­tion to the work­ing class isn’t like­ly to gen­er­ate much pro­gress.

An unknown con­ti­nent


How­ev­er one might judge the Pop­u­lar Front, no one can deny that it was fun­da­men­tal­ly ground­ed in mass pro­le­tar­i­an mobi­liza­tions. The con­nec­tions today’s rad­i­cal Left has with the broad­er work­ing class in this coun­try pales in com­par­ison. The Repub­li­can Par­ty prob­a­bly has deep­er ties to this class than many of the orga­ni­za­tions clam­or­ing for Left Uni­ty.

It’s sur­pris­ing, then, that exist­ing calls for Left Uni­ty have lit­tle to say about cre­at­ing a mass work­ing-class base. Those who are enthu­si­as­tic about Left Uni­ty would prob­a­bly agree that it is point­less to build an orga­ni­za­tion with­out last­ing organ­ic con­nec­tions to the diverse sec­tors of the work­ing class. Sure­ly they must rec­og­nize that a mass work­ing-class base is the con­di­tion of pos­si­bil­i­ty for any viable orga­ni­za­tion today. So I’m puz­zled that some of the most fer­vent pro­po­nents of Left Uni­ty have cho­sen, as their start­ing point, to have a con­ver­sa­tion between dif­fer­ent par­ties that have almost no real link to the Amer­i­can work­ing class. What, for exam­ple, did the CPUSA have to do with the occu­pa­tion of the win­dow fac­to­ry in Goose Island in 2008, the Oak­land port shut­down in 2011, or the string of fast food strikes explod­ing across cities in recent months? If the groups host­ing this ongo­ing con­ver­sa­tion have no such con­nec­tions to the strug­gles of the present, what is the like­li­hood that a par­ty formed out of their meet­ings will?

One assump­tion is that Left Uni­ty will itself start the process of win­ning such a base. Mark Solomon writes: “The sim­ple dec­la­ra­tion of uni­ty and amal­ga­ma­tion by old ide­o­log­i­cal foes will stir an ener­gized, hope­ful respon­se on the left.” But it takes a vivid imag­i­na­tion to pic­ture the news of Left Uni­ty gen­er­at­ing mass inter­est for social­ist meet­ings in New York. If you want to build an orga­ni­za­tion with gen­uine mass sup­port, you don’t start by amal­ga­mat­ing the frag­ments of a Left inherit­ed from the past, but by try­ing to under­stand the needs of a work­ing class strug­gling in the present.

If some orga­ni­za­tions, like the PCF dur­ing the Pop­u­lar Front, once had that kind of mass sup­port, it is pre­cise­ly because they were his­tor­i­cal­ly appro­pri­ate – they res­onat­ed, at least in some notable instances, with the com­po­si­tion of a his­tor­i­cal class. But that con­junc­ture has passed, the work­ing class has changed, and that polit­i­cal hori­zon is no longer rec­og­niz­able. So we are left to lament, as the young Engels did a cen­tu­ry and half ago: “The bour­geoisie talk pol­i­tics and go to church; what the pro­le­tari­at does we know not and indeed could hard­ly know.”

But Engels had already begun to change the sit­u­a­tion, by ini­ti­at­ing an inquiry into the fac­to­ries of Man­ches­ter, and this new and unfa­mil­iar phe­nom­e­non: the indus­tri­al work­ing class. His dis­cov­er­ies, along with his new con­nec­tions to pro­le­tar­i­an strug­gles, would turn out to be an indis­pens­able pre­con­di­tion for the for­ma­tion a new polit­i­cal par­ty just a few years lat­er. In the spring of 1847 he was asked, along with Karl Marx, to join the clan­des­tine League of the Just at a time when it was enter­ing a seri­ous cri­sis. Con­vinced by his inves­ti­ga­tions that the “con­di­tion of the work­ing-class is the real basis and point of depar­ture of all social move­ments of the present,” Marx and Engels took it upon them­selves to replace “the obso­lete League orga­ni­za­tion by one in keep­ing with the new times and aims.” They per­suad­ed the exist­ing mem­bers to drop their old con­spir­a­to­ri­al ways, ground them­selves in the strug­gles of this new­ly emerg­ing work­ing class, and adopt a new polit­i­cal project based on those strug­gles. The par­ty was reborn as the Com­mu­nist League. The old human­ist mot­to “All Men are Broth­ers” was replaced with “Work­ing Men of All Coun­tries, Unite!” And a new Man­i­festo was draft­ed – heav­i­ly indebt­ed to Engels’ con­crete dis­cov­er­ies, pub­lished in The Con­di­tion of the Work­ing Class in Eng­land.

Today this fun­da­men­tal move towards inves­ti­ga­tion should be repeat­ed. Before any­thing else, we have to for­get what we think we know, and fig­ure out what the work­ing class actu­al­ly is – and it is quite dif­fer­ent from the fac­to­ry work­ers of Man­ches­ter or Bil­lan­court. Inquiry will mean gen­er­at­ing a map that includes man­u­fac­tur­ing work­ers and union­ized pub­lic sec­tor work­ers alongside low-wage retail work­ers, domes­tic care­givers, sub­con­tract­ed truck dri­vers, migrant farm­work­ers, and wait­ress­es with stu­dent debt. How is this class divid­ed? Where is it found? What does it do? How is it exploit­ed? How does it strug­gle? What does it want?

Build­ing a base

Inquiry is not just a form of inves­ti­ga­tion – it is also the process of build­ing polit­i­cal rela­tions, the pre­con­di­tion for a mass base. Alongside the absence of inde­pen­dent and active orga­ni­za­tions appro­pri­ate to our con­junc­ture, the fact that exist­ing orga­ni­za­tions float in the ether, with­out a mass base, entails a real risk of being absorbed, bypassed, or total­ly mar­gin­al­ized by div­ing right into a Pop­u­lar Front. The great­est dan­ger, as every pro­po­nent of the Pop­u­lar Front strat­e­gy knows, is that of being reduced to “junior part­ners” of the lib­er­als. This dan­ger will become a near cer­tain­ty if an imma­ture par­ty, lack­ing its own sep­a­rate iden­ti­ty, or its own his­to­ry, is thrust into a coali­tion upon its foun­da­tion.

The exam­ple of the Pop­u­lar Front in France is again instruc­tive here. Not only did the PCF actu­al­ly retain its auton­o­my, but by May of 1936 it became the largest mem­ber of the coali­tion. And this wasn’t from win­ning over the pre­vi­ous­ly unpoliti­cized, since the Pop­u­lar Front nev­er actu­al­ly increased the total size of the broad­er Left; it was by absorbing mem­bers from oth­er groups in the coali­tion. Rad­i­cals migrat­ed to the Social­ists, and the Social­ists joined the Com­mu­nists. This inter­nal left­ward shift was pos­si­ble pre­cise­ly because the PCF had its own autonomous iden­ti­ty, and dis­tinct rep­u­ta­tion for dynamism, shop-floor orga­niz­ing, and dar­ing actions.

But it is also because the mass base sur­passed the par­ty itself in mil­i­tan­cy, which became evi­dent when work­ers came into con­flict with the con­ser­vatism of the par­ty bureau­cra­cy. Even in its glo­ry days, the Pop­u­lar Front had to explic­it­ly table what is osten­si­bly the core project of a com­mu­nist par­ty: the abo­li­tion of the cap­i­tal­ist mode of pro­duc­tion. Social­ism slow­ly became nation­al­ist, rev­o­lu­tion was side­lined in favor of reformism, deep class ten­sions were papered over in order to keep the par­lia­men­tary coali­tion alive, and work­ing-class mil­i­tan­cy was con­stant­ly curbed by its alleged rep­re­sen­ta­tives. As soon as the coali­tion won sig­nif­i­cant par­lia­men­tary vic­to­ries, it pre­dictably assumed a con­ser­v­a­tive stance, unwill­ing to go any fur­ther. So work­ers took mat­ters into their own hands: they called a gen­er­al strike, demand­ed the forty-hour work week, occu­pied their fac­to­ries, and in a few cas­es even man­aged pro­duc­tion them­selves.

Faced with this large­ly autonomous mil­i­tan­cy, the PCF, the most dynam­ic ele­ment in the alliance, found itself inter­nal­ly frac­tured. While the sec­re­tary gen­er­al, Mau­rice Thorez, disin­gen­u­ous­ly declared that “one must know how to stop a strike,” com­mu­nist fac­to­ry cells pushed for even more aggres­sive actions. In the end, the work­ing class had to strug­gle again­st its own rep­re­sen­ta­tives to push the Front in a more rad­i­cal direc­tion. The Pop­u­lar Front’s great­est vic­to­ries were won only because it unex­pect­ed­ly cre­at­ed a kind of rev­o­lu­tion with­in reformism. But the moment the work­ing class was pushed back to work, Left Uni­ty began to crum­ble: the coali­tion fell apart, the Rad­i­cals turned again­st the PCF, and reforms like the forty-hour work week were lost.

If there is a lesson to be learned from the Pop­u­lar Front, it is that even reformism can only arrive when it rides the wave of work­ing-class self activ­i­ty. When we remem­ber this prin­ci­ple, we’ll have to learn to aban­don the debates that twen­ty-first cen­tu­ry social­ists seem to enjoy so much. Cen­tral­iza­tion or decen­tral­iza­tion, ver­ti­cal­i­ty or hor­i­zon­tal­i­ty, local­ism or glob­al­ism – none of this can be resolved through inter­net polemics, meet­ings, or detached the­o­riza­tion. Weigh­ing the abstract val­ues of one shib­bo­leth over the oth­er is sim­ply a waste of time. The answers to such ques­tions can only be found by tak­ing a hard look at what the work­ing class is already doing and what polit­i­cal forms it will need to deep­en those strug­gles.

Author of the article

is a founding editor of Viewpoint and a doctoral candidate in History at the University of Pennsylvania.

12 Responses

  1. Ethan Young
    Ethan Young at |

    As a par­tic­i­pant in orga­niz­ing the June 5 meet­ing that dis­cussed Mark Solomon’s paper, I real­ly appre­ci­ate your com­ments. I would stress that no attempt has been made to com­pare the groups involved with their his­toric fore­run­ners - no one would sug­gest that the CP of 2013 is equiv­a­lent to the CP in 1936, here or any­where else. The pur­pose of the meet­ing was start­ing a dis­cus­sion, not rais­ing the cur­tain on a new pop­u­lar front, but - your remarks are ahead of the pack, and I will cir­cu­late them.

  2. Bhaskar Sunkara
    Bhaskar Sunkara at |

    Hey there, I should reply in-depth, but with trav­el­ing and my sched­ule I have no idea when I’ll get a chance, but I’ll say that I have no real objec­tion to the piece — in fact, I cri­tiqued a lot of the “let’s just return to the Pop­u­lar Front” approach at a Hay­mar­ket / ISR pan­el I was on at Left Forum last week­end.

    The cri­sis for the Left isn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly a pro­gram­mat­ic one about “what we should do,” or even “how we should do it,” but real­ly one of agen­cy, “who should do it?” I have no sound answers here, but it’s def­i­nite­ly ques­tions that I think are impor­tant to grap­ple with and the­se are his­to­ries that I am acute­ly aware of.

    Any­way, thanks for the engage­ment, it was thor­ough as usu­al and much need­ed.

    1. saturnite
      saturnite at |

      I feel like “who should do it” is kind of a par­a­lyz­ing ques­tion. Cor­rect me if I’m wrong, but I feel like there’s an impli­ca­tion in this ques­tion, that there’s some­thing wrong or arti­fi­cial about peo­ple who sim­ply believe in social­ism get­ting togeth­er and doing what they can to advance the process.

      I think it’s a mis­take to depend on “the organ­ic mass­es” to lead the way. I think it will be a social­ist orga­ni­za­tion, quite arti­fi­cial­ly con­struct­ed sim­ply by any­one who wants to, that even allows things like labor break­ing from its con­ser­v­a­tive lead­ers to even hap­pen, by pro­vid­ing an alter­na­tive pole of attrac­tion.

      Oth­er­wise you end up in this vicious cycle, of need­ing spon­ta­neous mass action for build­ing a par­ty, but the chances for spon­ta­neous mass action dimin­ished by the lack of a par­ty. Just build a par­ty, do it with who­ev­er wants to, who­ev­er will help, and stop fret­ting about who. Who? You! Me!

  3. Bhaskar Sunkara
    Bhaskar Sunkara at |

    Also, I wouldn’t agree with this at all: “The pri­ma­ry objec­tive of any new social­ist par­ty, accord­ing to Jacobin, will be to ally itself with ele­ments of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty known as “wel­fare lib­er­als,” and strength­en the Amer­i­can wel­fare state.” Either in the char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of work­ing-class vot­ers, many of whom vote DP, as “ele­ments of the Par­ty” (struc­tural­ly they have no tie, and should be bro­ken off from the DP tent as soon as pos­si­ble), or in the idea that the “pri­ma­ry objec­tive” of social­ists would be to strength­en a wel­fare state. That appeal was more built along the lines of the need to build coali­tions and work towards “non-reformist reforms.”

    This might be use­ful as clar­i­fi­ca­tion:

    I would also dif­fer­en­ti­ate between a “Par­ty” and an “orga­ni­za­tion” that hopes to help build and be a part of a mass move­ment…

  4. Adam Hefty
    Adam Hefty at |

    I real­ly like this piece, and think the his­tor­i­cal frame gets at some­thing that, in a boiled-down form, is trou­bling about the cur­rent “left uni­ty” debate. Per­haps this is anoth­er piece, but I’d be inter­est­ed to see more on the prax­is of left uni­ty - what peo­ple who hold the Jacobin / Solomon posi­tion (if it is accu­rate to see them as rea­son­ably close) think the Left can do togeth­er if not mere­ly adding a voice to the cho­rus of the left wing of lib­er­al­ism. (I’ll leave to one side the ques­tion of whether it would even be a coher­ent project to “strength­en” the com­plete­ly hol­lowed out US wel­fare state.) What are the oth­er, com­pet­ing per­spec­tives on what a more unit­ed left could do togeth­er?

  5. Ethan Young
    Ethan Young at |
  6. manyfesto
    manyfesto at |

    Bravo, this is a won­der­ful piece.

  7. Dead Generations and Unknown Continents: Reflections on Left Unity

    […] First pub­lished by View­point Mag­a­zine. […]

  8. Luke Elliott
    Luke Elliott at |

    I see this piece as extreme­ly use­ful. It rais­es some ques­tions that I think are impor­tant. Given that we agree on the need for new, inde­pen­dent left for­ma­tions to cre­ate new the­o­ries, design fresh strate­gies and revive cre­ative tac­tics, the ques­tion to me is: which step comes first? The author is, I think, won­der­ing whether bring­ing togeth­er sev­er­al small, rel­a­tive­ly inef­fi­ca­cious orga­ni­za­tions is the right use of our lim­it­ed ener­gy.

    From my view, the more impor­tant task is to con­nect to the orga­niz­ers and rank and fil­ers who are in base-build­ing orga­ni­za­tions, but have a (in some cas­es latent) ori­en­ta­tion toward the left. Of course this begs the ques­tion: who will do this work? I’m not sure I have the best answer, but I think a loose net­work of inde­pen­dent left­ists con­nect­ed through web­sites like this one, could make those con­nec­tions in their own cities; every­one in the net­work is say respon­si­ble for engag­ing 5-10 rank and and file or staff orga­niz­ers who are skilled and left lean­ing. A net­work of 5-10 ini­tial left­ists could spawn a for­ma­tion of 50 folks pret­ty quick­ly. But not just any folks – peo­ple who are con­nect­ed to base-build­ing orga­ni­za­tions, who know how to fight and win, who have friends and net­works that they could also bring on board.

  9. Bennett
    Bennett at |

    I think the anal­o­gy with the Pop­u­lar Front is a bit off. I mean, I’m all for return­ing to (and learn­ing from) his­to­ry, but I just don’t see the con­nec­tion between the his­tor­i­cal alliance of the PCF and SFIO again­st the ris­ing Nazi threat and calls for the *cre­ation* of a par­ty in the absence of any exist­ing Left for­ma­tion.

    As to orga­ni­za­tion­al forms, I agree with you that “the answers to such ques­tions can only be found by tak­ing a hard look at what the work­ing class is already doing and what polit­i­cal forms it will need to deep­en those strug­gles.” The thing is, I think that exam­i­na­tion can be part of the process of par­ty-build­ing, or else that the par­ty is pre­cise­ly the process of fig­ur­ing those things out. Oth­er­wise, as anoth­er com­menter not­ed, we end up in this chick­en-egg sit­u­a­tion where action is always deferred because the moment is not right, our knowl­edge is not enough, the sit­u­a­tion is not con­ducive, etc etc. But that’s the point—the moment is *nev­er* right, our forces are *nev­er* suf­fi­cient, and still we start (or until we start). 

    So what I hear is sev­er­al rel­a­tive­ly influ­en­tial peo­ple say­ing “Hey guys, our pow­ers are scat­tered and dif­fuse; let’s build some­thing togeth­er!” And then you answer: “Oh no, that will nev­er work because of X.” Inter­est­ing­ly, that “X” keeps shift­ing around: it’s because the par­ty will be too rigid and too cen­tral­ized, or else because it will be too loose and too eas­i­ly co-opt­ed, or because it will not be “tied to the con­crete strug­gles of a real his­tor­i­cal con­jec­ture,” or because of Vichy France or some­thing. The­se crit­i­cisms are so mutable—and so contradictory—that I strug­gle to find your real objec­tion. With­out that it’s just reflex­ive pes­simism: “Hey, let’s do some­thing!” “Nah, it will nev­er work.”

    Which, some­times I think the Left is way too com­fort­able in its defeat. We’ve got the whole “ruth­less cri­tique of every­thing exist­ing” down. But, you know, the whole point in Marx is that you com­bine that with the con­struc­tion of an alter­na­tive. I think build­ing sol­i­dar­i­ty requires a con­struc­tive moment, not just cri­tique but also affir­ma­tion.

    When I think about how you might have phrased your cri­tique more con­struc­tive­ly, I imag­ine some­thing like this: “Hey! I’m all about build­ing a par­ty. But I think we should pay atten­tion to the neces­si­ty of cul­ti­vat­ing a mass base and to changes in the com­po­si­tion of the work­force.” To which Jody or who­ev­er responds: “Total­ly! Let’s talk about that at our plan­ning meet­ing.” Sud­den­ly we’re in a very dif­fer­ent (col­lec­tive, excit­ing and fright­en­ing) space…

    1. D_D
      D_D at |

      Like (the com­ment by Ben­nett). I think many if not most advo­cates in writ­ing of left uni­ty are aware of Trotsky’s cri­tique of pop­u­lar fronts and of the Pop­u­lar Front gov­ern­ment in France. And of the dis­tinc­tion between a unit­ed front (a broad and nec­es­sary alliance of forces for or again­st a lim­it­ed or speci­fic issue) and a pop­u­lar front (a polit­i­cal bloc includ­ing cap­i­tal­ist par­ties which dulls the rad­i­cal­ism of the left and sub­merges a real alter­na­tive to cap­i­tal­ism). Those now cam­paign­ing for broad plu­ral­ist par­ties which would include rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies, left social democ­rats, rad­i­cal activists and grass­roots lead­ers, do not usu­al­ly include bour­geois forces in the scope of their new organ­i­sa­tion­al pro­pos­als.

      The cit­ed cor­re­spon­dence of Marx referred to the pre­ma­tu­ri­ty of a new Inter­na­tion­al rather than to new and rel­e­vant organ­i­sa­tions “in this or that par­tic­u­lar nation”, did it not?

      1. Bennett
        Bennett at |

        “The cit­ed cor­re­spon­dence of Marx referred to the pre­ma­tu­ri­ty of a new Inter­na­tion­al rather than to new and rel­e­vant organ­i­sa­tions “in this or that par­tic­u­lar nation”, did it not?”


Comments are closed.