In the aftermath of the most recent convention of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the organization stands in a precarious situation. Conflicts between the “Left” and “Right” of the DSA threaten to dismantle, or at the least disrupt, the current activities of the organization. However much the Left and Right disagree on issues, such as Palestine, the American national question, etc., they have found themselves united in the meditation of class conflict instead of its escalation. Many are familiar with “the largest socialist organization in the country” (in their own words), and many more will certainly become more familiar with their name following the primary election of Zohran Mamdani for NYC mayor and other minor campaigns, such as those of Omar Fateh. This is where both wings of the DSA unite together into a single organization that has seemingly shifted its dedication towards putting up candidates for public office.
If this everlong, and ultimately futile, quest to obtain any modicum of political power was only sought after by the liberal elements of the DSA, we would have nothing to say as we are not liberals nor have any interest in opining on what tactics and strategies liberals take. Our issue comes when some of the most ardent defenders and proponents of electoralism are coming from the “Communist” camp of the DSA, those of the neo-Kautskyite Marxist Unity Group or the post-Trotskyist Bread and Roses (just to name a few). We have prepared some criticisms of a draft program written by Marxist Unity Group called The Florence Program, and while this specific draft program is slightly out of date (written in February 2025) it still retains the core essence of the ideology we seek to critique. In fact, in its content the Florence Program surmises a large proportion of the errors within not only the Right and Left of DSA. This critique is larger than just the Florence Program itself, larger than even Marxist Unity Group and the DSA as a whole. It is an attack leveled at the idealism that has permeated and entrenched itself into the Left. This program is not unique in its use of mediation, it is however just one of the most comprehensive in its analysis and practice.
The Florence Program:
The preamble of the Program serves as a, mainly, inoffensive retelling of the history of American Capitalism, where most of the contents are either agreeable or simply not worth arguing over. However, there still remains a large amount of contradictions in their writings that we take pause with and have comments on.
Paragraph One:
“Capitalism is a failed system. The capitalist class has unleashed misery on the workers of the world, turning to environmental devastation, militarized policing, mass incarceration, wars of genocide and conquest, and radicalization of existing forms of social domination, all in the pursuit of profits.”
Is Capitalism a failed system? When we examine the reasoning laid out in the Program they cite the moral failings of Capital: Alienation and misery of workers, environmental destruction, militarized police, etc. However, these issues listed are the products of Capitalism, not its goal. If Capitalism has failed, then we must assume that the goal of Capital is the creation of a libertine utopia free of conflict, but that is not the goal of Capital. Marxist Unity Group even correctly identifies the actual purpose of Capital further on.
In Paragraph Two:
“Capitalism transforms or abolishes all existing social structures to serve the production of surplus-value, the root of the ruling classes’ incomes of profit, interest, and rent… capitalism concentrates increasing capital in fewer hands, crosses every national border, subsumes every aspect of society into one vast market…”
The true goal of Capital is the accumulation of private property and the extraction of surplus value in the form of profit, even Marxist Unity Group admits. Now that we recognize the purpose of Capitalism, can we truly classify it as a failed system? We answer this question in the negative.
In fact, through analyzing the conditions of the present epoch, we can ascertain that currently Capitalism is at its peak (as of now) and it is inarguably the most successful it has ever been since the very first joint-stock venture companies were founded in England and Holland.
1. Capital has spread itself internationally, finally overthrowing the last vestiges and remnants of the old order of agrarianism and manorialism, and in its stead has hoisted up the banner of wage-labor and private property.
2. Capital has extended itself past the material realm, where transactions and the gears of the economy no longer need to turn in the world we exist in. The digitization of the economy has allowed for the proliferation of fictitious finance capital, which was once housed in only a few countries.
3. Capital has co-opted the struggle against itself and deemed it in its own terms, in the process infecting nearly all of its detractors with the language of their oppressors. Its final victory culminated in the complete valorization of class and work by the “Communist” and Socialist Left, such that the warriors against Capital inadvertently became the most ardent defenders of its social relations.
In Paragraph 9:
The workers’ movement has arisen from the struggle of workers to improve their conditions against the interests of their bosses, landlords, and rulers through demands that only partially address their domination under capitalism. These struggles and the collective organizations that wage them—trade-unions, cooperatives, mutual aid societies, and at the highest level, the political party—hold the secret to reconstructing a world without a ruling class and an exploited class: the democratic control of society by the people whose labor creates it.
Marxist Unity Group correctly identifies that the reformist positions and platforms held by the currently existing workers’ organs do not adequately address the issues of Capitalism and only seek to alleviate the results of the mode of production. However, the Group immediately contradicts themselves and posits that it is the same toothless and defanged reformist organizations that will lead us to the future that they are incapable of even envisioning. The Group claims that these institutions hold “the secret” to “reconstructing a world” in a, hopefully, brighter and better image, and cites their role in the current social order; however, it is in their linguistics that we draw our criticism and where they show their own misunderstanding of Communism and our goals.
1. The usage of “the secret” implies that these reformist trade unions hold the sole, or at least a great deal of, authority by which we can build a sense of “dual power” (a delusion in its own right, however that is a topic for another time). This is a far cry from merely recognizing the potential progressive nature of these institutions, such as when Engels surmised that “nationalization may provide a hint” for socialization, but quickly clarified it was not the end of the matter, rather the beginning. Marxist Unity Group seems to misunderstand this premise.
2. “Reconstructing” is also a curious word choice to use. When a building burns down and it is reconstructed, it would be the assumption that the same, or a similar enough, building would be built in its stead. As was the case for the historical era of “Reconstruction” in American history, where the country was undergoing massive social change, but that the country was still decidedly going to be rebuilt in a similar image of itself before the war. It is interesting that they would use this phrasing instead of just clarifying that they wish to construct an entirely new society. It begs the question if they even have the political desire or imagination to construct a different society.
Outside of their linguistic issues, their logic itself and conception of these organizations is detached from reality. Trade unions, cooperatives, and mutual aid societies do not hold some special key that unlocks communization, in fact it is the opposite. These organizations can only exist under the current social relations of Capitalism, and we will run through their faults briefly.
• Trade Unions: Unions themselves, as stated outright by Marxist Unity Group, only seek to alleviate the effects of Capital, not to revolt against it. The express purpose of a union is strictly to engage in direct collaboration and mediation with the boss and management, such that class is directly reaffirmed by their actions. Through their struggle for “bread and butter” issues they affirm the role of the proletariat as wage earners, just this time slightly better paid.
• Cooperatives: Co-ops certainly provide an alternative to traditional wage-labor, however this alternative is simply to turn the worker into an owner. Similar to unions, co-ops only help quell the symptoms of Capital and reinforce the current social order.
• Mutual Aid: This one is perhaps the worst example Marxist Unity Group could’ve picked. Mutual aid essentially acts as charity which is in itself nowhere near revolutionary.
All of these are very brief overviews and we do not seek to hope that this suffices as a full, in-depth critique of these forms of organization, but just to introduce the criticisms.
The debate surrounding the role and usage of political parties is still yet raging. While we are often critical of the actions and organizational form of the Party, we are neutral in regards to the usage of the party form as a tool in the class struggle. However, we certainly disagree with Marxist Unity Group’s claim that the Party is the “highest level” of the class struggle. The highest level of the class struggle is the Revolution. Could the party form be active in the revolutionary struggle and even prove itself useful? Of course! Is it the deciding factor leading the Revolution? Of course not! The Group falls short to defend its position in the necessity of the party form and desperately clings to the “historical validity” of the role of the Party all while failing to critically examine its role through the history of the class struggle.
In Paragraph 10:
“Only socialism, the project of universal human emancipation led by the working class, can overcome such adversity.”
This is where the Marxist Unity Group completely breaks from any relation to the works of Marx and should erase his name and etch in those of Robespierre, Saint-Just, and Danton. Socialism, a term which has become altogether meaningless in its application, is assuredly not the “project of universal human emancipation” as the Group claims, and it is for the following reasons:
1. Communism is not for the universal emancipation of mankind, it is the specific liberation of the proletariat from the realm of class society. This line of logic is more Jacobin than it is Marxist, and it is this attitude that has already been critiqued and noted for nearly 150 years. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels remarks on the sloganeering that the liberal thinkers of the French Enlightenment would use in their demands for revolution, and how these phrases found themselves into the proto-Communist thinkers.
2. To posit that we, as Communists, seek universal emancipation of humanity is built on the notion that, in some manner, the bourgeoisie is limited in their expression under the reign of Capital. This is a patently absurd idea as the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie (and even some of the higher segments of the proletarian class) are living the most luxurious lives anyone could live in human history, both materially and psychologically. Meanwhile, the international proletariat languishes away in the Tartarus that is wage-labor and employment.
Also in Paragraph 10:
In short, we must merge socialism with the workers’ movement. As this merger develops, so too will the farsightedness, confidence, and organization of the working class that enables their emergence as the hegemonic class of society. Working class victory in this struggle—the conquest of political power—is propelled by the formation and practice of the socialist party.
To claim that Socialism and Communism must be merged with the workers’ movement highlights a disastrous flaw in the psyche of Marxist Unity Group. In our first journal, Reflections on the Student Movement, we discussed a glaring issue in the way organizations position themselves as foreign to the workers’ and that they must encircle the proletariat and get them to accept the Party. When in reality, there is but one true movement and that is Communism. Communism is, by definition, the definitive workers’ movement as it advocates for the proletariat’s self abolition and its immediate freedom from the wedges of class society. Marxist Unity Group falls into the same trap that we’ve previously highlighted. They see themselves as being alien to the current proletarian population and, as we explored previously, will necessarily lead to a tactic of organization that further alienates them from the very class they seek to speak for.
Furthermore, the victory of the proletariat is not predicated on a conquest of political power, but rather on its abolition. The Communist Revolution is a revolt not simply against the Capitalist class, but against all its tools, including: the State and Politics. Politics is the dominion of the bourgeoisie. It is one their most nefarious tools in its quest of societal domination against the proletariat. As well, the final victory of the proletariat is not propelled by the formation of the Party, but in the everyday spontaneous struggle of all workers across the world.
In Paragraph 11:
The working class must lead the battle to sweep away this political order and establish a truly democratic republic, freeing the workers of the world from the chains of American imperialism, and setting the stage for the working class to lead a socialist transformation of our society.
A common motif found among many Communist sects and creeds, not strictly that of Marxist Unity Group’s, is that we do not live in a “democratic society”, and that our goal as Communists must then be to establish this “truly democratic republic”. What all these groups fail to understand is that we do indeed live under a democracy, a true one at that. In previous articles we have outlined that democracy and, by extension, the democratic republic are both intrinsically tied to bourgeois society. For brevity’s we will not go fully in depth on this matter (currently), but democracy is the ultimate and final mediation the bourgeois class cedes to the proletariat.
In Paragraph 12:
Through this process, the special role of the state standing above society withers away and, as the revolution expands internationally, national divisions and inequalities between peoples are eliminated.
A State is not an entity that often allows itself to be withered away, in most regards. The State, in its essence, is the mediator of class conflict, such that it was historically used by one class to prop up its own economic and social interests over others, but also that in the contemporary Capitalist era the State, as a tool, is used directly by the Capitalist class to smooth over class antagonisms and pacify the proletariat. Even if we are to “smash the ready made State machinery” and build up a “new state”, that State would still take the role as the mediator of class conflict. It would not simply exist to combat against the remnants of the defeated Capitalist class, as Leninists would argue, but it would exist to take its place and only transfer political power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. A mere transfership of power will only result in the continuing of capitalistic relations as we have seen time and time again in the experiments of old, such as the Soviet Union and even the CNT-FAI’s tenure over the Spanish Republic. Wherever the State exists, so do capitalistic relations. They are as inseparable as the bond between a mother and her child.
In Paragraph 13:
Proceeding from these principles, the Democratic Socialists of America unites around a strategy of class independence from the capitalist Democratic and Republican Parties, the development of independent working class organizations to a critical mass, and struggling for consistent democracy throughout all spheres of society. In so doing, we first demand a people’s constitutional convention elected by universal, equal, and direct suffrage to establish a democratic republic that allows for the political rule of the working class
It seems Marxist Unity Group can only conceive of a revolution in the terms of a national democratic one. Do they not know that we have already had several? Did 1789, 1820, 1866, 1870, 1919, and 1965 not all usher in this democratic republic that they seek? Do we exist in some alternate reality in which the right to vote does not exist? This obsession with democracy seeks to do nothing but to defang the Communist movement and pivot our fight towards mediating the class struggle instead of intensifying it.
After this long preamble, Marxist Unity Group finally unleashes their demands and they are underwhelming to say the least. The first 15 demands are what we can call State Building Demands, as in they exist to be implemented by a new “Democratic Republic” upon its arrival and to grant it legitimacy. Many of these are demands that either A). already exist, or B). can very feasibly exist under the current economic and social system. Perhaps their most ludicrous demand is the renaming of the “House of Representatives” to the “People’s House of Representatives”, and then vesting all of the legislative power in it. Their plan for government still has the same 3 branches of government that currently exist, albeit with a neutered executive (the President is to be replaced with the new Executive Council). All in all, these demands are feckless and, most, can be waived as utter nonsense that wouldn’t even have been seen as radical in the time of the Founding Fathers.
The secondary set of demands are focused less on State Building and are rather “immediate measures” to be implemented, and then these are followed by a set of international demands. Again, as said above, many of these “immediate” demands can be satisfied by the Capitalist mode of production, and currently are around the world. Take for example, the call for a standard 32 hour work week. Instead of offering up a negative critique, let us offer a positive one instead and show what we would rather call for. In place of the establishment of a 32 hour work week, we would call for the immediate cessation of the commodity based economy. In one fell swoop we would end the undignified and slave-like practice that is “work”. In its stead we would create the volunteer economy, where we live by the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
Many of these demands show a glaring flaw in the thought process of Marxist Unity Group: they either are unwilling to succeed in class victory, or they simply don’t want to. Take for example Demand 8: Periodic suppression of public and private debts owed by workers. Can we get more arbitrary and abstract than this? Many would point at us and laugh off our critiques as abstract, but they cannot even decide whether they want to eliminate debt or not! What kind of socialist society would allow for the existence of private debts? Certainly not one we would like to live under. Many would look at these demands and our critiques and say “these are immediate demands! We can still work towards the abolition of Capital!”, but under this framework we simply can’t. Even in the event that we do wrestle political control through the barrel of the gun we cannot even conceive of a different world. We cannot imagine abolishing the present state of things. In that sense this program is the ultimate mediation! It placates the class antagonisms faced by the working class by offering it mere scraps at the table. Higher wages, access to medicine, the right to vote. Are we so sheepish that we would meekly accept this? While these are mere issues with a single program, it is a symptom of a greater wound. The Left cannot dare to dream of a new society, so it does not. As such we fall into the same pitfalls theorists and activists did 50, 100, and 150 years ago. We are thus condemning the real movement to the same destruction of the past, because our vision itself is a mere reflection of that very past. It seems long gone are the days where the (self appointed) representatives of the proletariat look to storm the Gates of Heaven, now they merely want to take Saint Peter’s seat.
Appendix:
Link to the Florence Program in its entirety.