Dan La Botz and Stephen R. Shalom’s recent writings in Tempest have scolded supporters of Palestinian armed resistance. Their abstract moralizing about October 7 comes as no surprise: despite their stated international socialism, a look at their past writings reveals a tendency towards philosophical idealism, and a definite drift rightward toward reformism and liberalism.
In recent years, the threat of Trotskyist entryism has served as a bogeyman for some members of the Democratic Socialists of America — and a stated goal for others. But the history of the French Turn reveals a strategy that is only viable for Trotskyist organizations under very specific conditions. It is always doomed to fail within the DSA, which is essentially an appendix of the capitalist and imperialist Democratic Party. This analysis has important implications for how we approach the united front and revolutionary regroupment.
If the “micro-sect” isn’t the problem, why do so many socialist organizations suffer from a lack of democracy? And why haven’t we built a mass revolutionary party yet? As Firebrand’s E. Reed argues, charting the history of the socialist movement shows how inheritances from the past continue to weigh us down.
Introduction “Trotsky considers the opportunist current and its leaders somewhat as victims of circumstances… There is no doubt that opportunism, like all else in the world has its objective causes in external conditions. But in politics more than anywhere else, to...
What kind of party do we need? Or what kind of party should revolutionary socialists be focused on building? I want to propose some answers to the organizational questions we’re facing. But more than that, I want to invite those who are asking the same questions to...