The French Turn, DSA, and Revolutionary Regroupment
Originally published at Firebrand.
In March 2020,several longtime members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)published an essay “Factionalism inDSA”that warned about the dangers of entryism by organizations such as SocialistAlternative. Using the example of the “French Turn” undertaken by American Trotskyistsin the 1930s, the authors argue that disciplined revolutionary entry intobroader organizations was necessarily destructive. They state that DSA shouldnot allow any entryists into its ranks: “If the Leftis to succeed where past generations have failed, it can’t allow sectarianorganizations to operate as “parties within a party.””
However,these claims have an ironic and deluded whiff of redbaiting. If there wasserious Trotskyist entryism, then DSA’s intimate relationship with theDemocratic Party would be fundamentally challenged. While it is nice toimagine, there is no Trotskyist “French Turn” occurring in DSA. Rather, thethreat of imaginary Trotskyists and other “ultra-leftists” in DSA has led to “ice pick”jokes threatening violence against political opponents and the dissolution ofthe BDS and Palestine Solidarity Working Group who have opposed Zionistpoliticians such as Jamaal Bowman. In fact, the 2023 DSAconvention reaffirmed the organization’s support for the Democratic Party.As a result, the article’s claims about the dangers of entryism resembleanticommunist paranoia.
Thearticle’s caricature of Trotskyist entryism obscures the real history andlessons of the “French Turn”. Trotsky advocated the “French Turn” as ashort-term tactic for revolutionaries to build up their forces by joiningreformist organizations. While Trotskyist entry into the Socialist Party ofAmerica proved successful in its objectives, this does not mean it applies tothe present-day DSA. Unlike the Socialist Party, DSA is not a site of strugglefor leftists, but a wing of the Democratic Party. Entryism into DSA does notbuild up the capacity of the revolutionary left but serves as a rationale foropportunism and political liquidation.
The French Turn
The development ofthe French Turn cannot be separated from the political crossroads faced byTrotskyism in 1933. Until now, the Trotskyist movement had functioned as anexternal faction in the Communist International, hoping to return it to itsoriginal program as a center for world revolution. Yet in Germany, thesectarianism of the Third Period that saw the social democrats condemned as “socialfascists” cleared the way for Hitler’s rise to power that ended with thedestruction of the once-powerful Communist Party of Germany (KPD). For Trotsky,the German debacle proved beyond any doubt that the Third International was unreformable.Now he said it was time for revolutionaries to organize a Fourth International tolead the working class against capitalism.
The victory of Nazism immediately raised the stakes for the workers’ movementacross the world. In 1934, an abortive fascist coup occurred in Francethreatening the stability of the Third Republic. French workers responded withunited action that cut across traditional party lines. This joint action bysocialists and communists produced a massive impulse for unity from therank-and-file in both parties. In response, the Communist Party made overturesto the Socialists for broader unity. However, by 1935-36, this unity took the formof class collaborationism with the liberal bourgeoisie known as the popularfront.
The bankruptcy ofthe Third Period discredited the Stalinists in the eyes of many left-wingworkers internationally. That meant the social democrats were among the mainbeneficiaries from this upsurge of proletarian militancy. Trotsky believed thatthe growth of leftwing social democracy and Stalinist moves toward non-revolutionaryunity with the liberal bourgeoisie represented both a danger and anopportunity. If the Stalinists succeeded in building unity with the socialdemocrats, then this would sideline the French Trotskyists for the comingperiod. Therefore, it was necessary to find a way to forestall thisdevelopment.
At the moment, Trotsky believed that his followers were too weak to intervenein events, but there was the possibility of joining this radicalization fromwithin. This raised the question of which organization to join. Thebureaucratized internal life of the Communist Parties meant that they wereclosed to the Trotskyists. By contrast, the social democratic parties –particularly in France – seemed to offer more possibilities for intervention.
At the time, the French Socialist Party (SFIO) was presenting itself as a moredemocratic party. In late 1933, the party’s “neo-socialist” right-wing splitaway, and the leadership had lurched to the left and was encouragingrevolutionaries to join. The party’s left-wing led by Marceau Pivert hadthousands of members and was open to Trotskyism. As a result, Trotskyencouraged his followers to join the SFIO in June 1934. A year later, Trotskyistshad over 20% of the vote in the Seine Federation and their paper, Révolution,had a circulation in the tens of thousands. They also managed to triple theirmembership to roughly 600. Ultimately, entryism ended in October 1935 when theTrotskyists were expelled for openly repudiating the Popular Front. Yet in alimited amount of time, the Trotskyists had made some important gains in theSFIO.
At every juncture, however, the French Turn was confronted with major problems.The Trotskyists failed to seize opportunities due to their own internaldivisions. The problems came down to a feud between a group led by PierreNaville and the other by Raymond Molinier and Pierre Frank. Naville was agifted theoretician but was inflexible and opposed to the French Turn. Bycontrast, Molinier was more enthusiastic about the French Turn but had atendency toward opportunism. When the Trotskyists entered the SFIO, Navillesplit from the group. In an ironic turn of events, Naville later joined theSFIO but refused to join the Trotskyist entryists. The fact that there were twoseparate Trotskyist entryist groups clearly limited their impact. The two groupswould only reunify in September 1935 just as the period of entryism ended.
At the end of 1935, Trotsky drew the following conclusions from the Frenchexperience:
1. Entry into a reformist centrist party in itselfdoes not include a long perspective. It is only a stage which, under certainconditions, can be limited to an episode.
2. The crisis and the threat of war have a doubleeffect. First, they create the conditions in which the entry itself becomespossible in a general way. But, on the other hand, they force the rulingapparatus, after many sharp fluctuations, to resort to expelling therevolutionary elements (just as the ruling class after long vacillations findsitself forced to resort to fascism).
3. Entry at the present moment, one year later than inFrance-and what a year!-could mean that the duration would not be too long. Butthis by no means decreases the importance of the entry: in a short period animportant step forward can also be made. But what is necessary, especially inlight of the French experience, is to free ourselves of illusions in time; torecognize in time the bureaucracy’s decisive attack against the left wing, anddefend ourselves from it, not by making concessions, adapting, or playinghide-and-seek, but by a revolutionary offensive.
4. What has been said above does not at all excludethe task of “adapting” to workers who are in the reformist parties, by teachingthem new ideas in the language they understand. On the contrary, this art mustbe learned as quickly as possible. But one must not, under the pretext ofreaching the ranks, make principled concessions to the top centrists and leftcentrists (like the SAP, which, in the name of the “masses,” prostrates itselfbefore the reformists).
5. Devote the most attention to the youth.
6. The decisive condition of success during this newchapter is still firm ideological cohesion and perspicacity toward our entireinternational experience.
For Trotsky,entryism was a strategic turn that had to be done very carefully. To avoidbeing swamped by the larger reformist leadership, he believed the Trotskyists mustmaintain their discipline so they could reach a wider audience. Entryism was notmeant to support the reformists but allow the Trotskyists to be in a betterposition to expose them. This would enable the Trotskyists to regroup the moremilitant sections of their working class base around a revolutionary program. Ultimately,Trotsky hoped that when the period of entryism ended that a strongerrevolutionary party would emerge.
The United States
While French Trotskyist entryism achieved mixed results, the Americans carriedout a much more successful “French Turn.” By 1934, the Communist League ofAmerica (CLA) only numbered 200 members and was dwarfed by the much largerCommunist Party (CPUSA). Despite their small size, the CLA possessed a greatmany strengths that allowed them to break out of their isolation. For one, theywere led by capable organizers such as James Cannon and Max Shachtman.Secondly, the CLA played a major role in mass struggles, most notably leadingthe Minneapolis Teamster Strikes of 1934. This showed that a few well-placedunionists backed by a strong revolutionary organization could lead workers tovictory. This led the CLA to fuse with the A.J. Muste-led American WorkersParty (AWP), which organized Toledo auto-part workers in militant strikes. Nowwith a tested core of working class organizers behind them, it appeared thatthe Trotskyists were poised for greater political breakthroughs.
During thisperiod, the then-largely moribund Socialist Party of America (SPA) experienceda rapid growth in membership. Like the French Party, the SPA was confrontedwith growing working class militancy and calls by the Communist Party forunity. From 9,500 members in 1929, the SPA grew to over 20,000 by 1934. Many ofthese new recruits considered themselves to be revolutionary Marxists andfilled the ranks of the Young People’s Socialist League (YPSL). This influx ofleftist members had the effect of increasing the amount of factionalism withinthe party.
The Trotskyists were watching all these developments and wondering how theywould be resolved. Even though the SPA was a spent force on the revolutionaryleft, it still attracted radicalizing workers to its ranks. Looking back atthis situation in 1944, Cannon believed that the SPA’s internal situation wasunstable and would not last long:
The party itself was not viable. It was already in thestage of violent ferment and disintegration in 1936 at the time of our entry.The Socialist Party was destined, in any case, to be torn apart. The onlyquestion was how and along what lines the disintegration and eventualdestruction of the historically unviable party would take place.
It was possiblethat the leftists in the SPA would be silenced or expelled. Then the partywould likely tail Roosevelt and the Democrats. Alternatively, the party couldbe taken over by these uneducated new militants, who as Cannon said were “philistinesto the marrow of their bones, without tradition, without serious knowledge,without anything at all…” Finally, considering the “strongsentiments of conciliation with Stalinism” that existed within its ranks, itwas possible that the Socialist Party would be captured by the Communist Party.
For Cannon, entryism into the Socialist Party could forestall all thesedevelopments. If the Trotskyists used this limited window, then they could gainforces for the revolution:
The question was: Would the potentially revolutionaryelement of the centrist party-the worker activists and rebellious youth-beengulfed by these forces? Or, would they be fused with the cadres of Trotskyismand brought over to the road of the proletarian revolution? This could betested only by our entry into the Socialist Party.
However, Cannonfaced opposition to an American “French Turn” from two quarters. The first wasfrom Muste, who was partly opposed to entryism since he believed it was anaccommodation to the reformists. Another reason for his opposition was anattachment to the Workers Party. As Cannon said: “Muste couldn’t bear thethought that after we had founded a party and proclaimed it the one and onlyparty, we should then pay any attention to any other party. We should go on in ourown way, keep our heads up, and see what happens. If they failed to join us,well, that would be their own fault. Muste’s position was not sufficientlythought out, not reasoned with the necessary objectivity. It would not do inthe situation.”
A second and more volatile source of opposition came from Hugo Oehler. A CLAveteran, Oehler was a talented mass worker and union activist, but was opposedto any entryism into non-revolutionary organizations based on principle. ForOehler, entry into a party affiliated with the Second International representedan abject betrayal of Marxism. Inside the Workers Party, Oehler’s oppositionproved disruptive as he engaged in factionalism – including physicalconfrontations – and continually violated party discipline. While Oehler foughtwith blunt instruments, Cannon used a more surgical approach to win over theparty: “Medicinal treatment is the more important and must always come first inany case. Ours consisted of sound education on Marxist principles and theirsectarian caricatures; thorough discussion, patient explanation.” Thisenabled Cannon to isolate Oehler and win over a majority to his side.
Once these obstacles were dealt with, the way was clear for the Workers Partyto join the SPA in 1936. To enter the SPA, the Trotskyists had to make manyorganizational concessions which included dissolving their party organizationand ceasing all publications. As Cannon recalled, these compromises were abitter pill that the Trotskyists were willing to swallow:
Our problem was to make an agreement with this rabbleto admit us to the Socialist Party. In order to do that we had to negotiate. Itwas a difficult and sticky job, very disagreeable. But that did not deter us. ATrotskyist will do anything for the party, even if he has to crawl on his bellyin the mud.
However, theTrotskyists did not lose their political identity inside the Socialist Party.They managed to gain control over the Chicago-based Socialist Appeal andused that to spread their message.
During the period of entryism from 1936-37, the Trotskyists accumulatedinvaluable political experience. For one, they were the main force organizingthe Dewey Commission to defend Leon Trotsky and expose the Moscow Trials.Second, the Trotskyists organized support for the Republicans in the SpanishCivil War. The war in Spain was an acid test for the wider left.Revolutionaries defended anarchists and other radicals who were leading asocial revolution in the Loyalist Zone. On the other side, the Communist Partyand other reformists backed forces that defended capitalist property and engagedin the repression of revolutionary workers. Finally, the Trotskyists wereinvolved in the maritime strikes occurring in California.
As Cannonobserved, the Trotskyists simply carried out their work and waited for the politicalissues to inevitably arise: “Our plan was to let the political issues developnormally, as we were sure they would. We didn’t have to force discussion or toinitiate the faction struggle artificially. We could well afford to let thepolitical issues unfold under the impact of world events. And we didn’t havelong to wait.”
Indeed, it seemed that the Socialist Party leadership wanted to drive out theTrotskyists almost as soon as they joined. On March 26, 1937, a nationalconvention was held in Chicago to contain the Trotskyists. In a move targeting SocialistAppeal, factional publications were banned. In another move, the SPAleadership introduced a “gag” law to stop the discussion about disputedquestions inside party branches. However, the Trotskyists were not yet formallyexpelled from the party. In addition, forces in the SPA wanted to endorse NewDeal-aligned politicians like Fiorello La Guardia while the Trotskyists opposedthis move.
In August 1937,little more than a year after they had entered the Socialist Party, theTrotskyists were expelled. At the beginning of 1938, the Trotskyistsreconstituted themselves as the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Based on sheernumbers, the Trotskyists measurably gained from the French Turn. They hadentered the SPA with only a few hundred and now counted at least 1,000 membersand supporters. They also won over the bulk of the YPSL to revolutionarypolitics. As a result, a solid revolutionary party had been created in theUnited States. In addition, the Socialist Party was no longer a seriouscompetitor on the left. As Cannon said: “Since then the SP has progressivelydisintegrated until it has virtually lost any semblance of influence in anyparty of the labor movement. Our work in the Socialist Party contributed tothat.”
What was the overall balance sheet on the “French Turn”? For one, entryismrequired a disciplined organization and an adherence to principled politics tosucceed. Secondly, Trotsky observed, entryism was – at best – merely ashort-term tactic: “I will not say that the entry into the Socialist Party [ofAmerica] was a mistake in itself, but the weakness and bad composition of theparty gave very limited possibilities to this maneuver and demand from us a neworientation and a new policy.” Moreover,entryism over the long-term raised the danger of revolutionaries adapting toopportunist politics. As Cannon noted, this opportunist deviation appearedamong the American Trotskyists:
There is no doubt at all that the leaders of ourmovement adapted themselves a little too much to the centrist officialdom ofthe Socialist Party. A certain amount of formal adaptation was absolutelynecessary in order to gain the possibilities of normal work in theorganization. But this adaptation undoubtedly was carried too far in some casesand led to illusions and fostered deviations on the part of some members of ourmovement.
As a short-termtactic, entryism needed a clear goal and exit strategy. If pursued for thelong-term, then the entryists would see their task not as building arevolutionary party but “capturing” a majority in the reformist party. Thiseffectively amounted to political liquidation.
Contrary to anticommunistclaims, the American “French Turn” was not a sectarian wrecking operation thatdestroyed an otherwise healthy Socialist Party. This retelling overlooks manycrucial elements of history. First, the Socialist Party leadership were notinnocent victims of “sectarian” Trotskyists, rather they were aggressive agentswho wanted to remove their political critics. Secondly, Cannon and theTrotskyists did not so much split the Socialist Party as they were driven out.Third, entryism showed that the Socialist Party could not honestly answerleftist critics without silencing them. Fourth, the Socialist Party’s “big tent”approach that included revolutionaries, centrists, and reformists under oneumbrella was not a workable idea in reality. As the historian Bryan Palmernoted, “an all-inclusive party of the left” that would “transcend the strategicdifferences separating distinct strands adhering to counter-posed politics ofrevolution and social democratic reform has historically been an attractivepanacea.”To function, a “big tent” organization must avoid confronting major politicalquestions. What Cannon and the Trotskyists did was clarify how unworkable the “bigtent” approach was in practice.
Finally, Cannonand the Trotskyists did not set out to destroy the Socialist Party. Rather,they wanted to build something new and better. They looked for arenas where itwas possible to merge principled party building with mass work. Hundreds insidethe Socialist Party were convinced that a Marxist program provided the neededanswers. In the end, this tactic allowed the Trotskyists to build a small, butvaluable, beachhead for revolutionary politics in the United States.
The DemocraticSocialists of America
Since the firstBernie Sanders campaign and the election of Donald Trump, the DemocraticSocialists of America have jumped in membership from nearly 6,000 in 2016 to 94,000in 2021, albeit falling to 58,000 members in goodstanding by 2023. This makes DSA the largest nominally socialist organizationin the United States since the 1940s. On the surface, it appears that DSA hasshed a great deal of its longtime more conservative social democratic outlookby adopting left-sounding resolutions at various conventions. As a result, manyleftists and those without a political home have flocked to DSA seeing it as avehicle for socialism.
This raises the question over whether Trotskyists should enter organizationslike DSA. Currently, no socialist organization proposes a strategy that iscompletely analogous to the “French Turn.” Yet there are “soft” entryistefforts adopted by various groups. For example, in 2020 Socialist Alternative (SAlt)proposed dual membershipfor its cadre inside DSA. They claim that DSA’s “big tent” offers opportunitiesto expand the horizon of socialist politics: “While Socialist Alternative is anideologically and politically cohesive organization, we also see the need forbroader, “big tent” organizations like DSA to help bring together wider forcesin campaigns, movements, and ongoing united fronts.”
SAlt claims they are an “explicitly revolutionary Marxist organization,” whowill help “build [DSA] while engaging in comradely debates about how to advancesocialist politics and struggles of workers and the oppressed.” In addition, SAltargues that DSA could make a major contribution to building the socialistmovement if they broke from the Democrats:
We think that DSA will be best positioned to grow anddevelop both the organization and the wider socialist movement by popularizingthe need for a new party, running exemplary viable campaigns outside of theDemocratic Party, and focusing its energy on building mass movements. Thisapproach would require DSA decisively breaking from the Democrats and helpinglay the basis for a new mass party.
In judging SAlt’s strategy, we should ask if it meets two of thecriteria for entryism established by Trotsky and Cannon. The first being thatan entryist organization is a disciplined group with a revolutionary program.Is this true about SAlt? In both 2016and 2020,SAlt supported Bernie Sanders and registered people to vote in the DemocraticParty. Despite his claims to be a socialist, Bernie Sanders is a New DealDemocrat with a long history of supportingimperialist wars. Kshama Sawant, a SAlt member elected to the Seattle CityCouncil, was an activecampaigner forSanders and has a history of supportingpolice unions. Thus, Sawant acts more like a careerist politician than arevolutionary tribune.
At times, Socialist Alternative has criticizedDSA for giving left cover to the Squad and “progressive” Democrats who in turnback the Biden administration. However, SAlt has never questioned their previousrecord of backing Bernie Sanders and has never given an account for thisincoherence. Like DSA, SAlt has fostered illusions that the Democratic Partycan become an instrument for socialist politics. Compared to DSA, SAlt isinconsistent; they seem to promote a revolutionary line but they are advocatingreformism in practice. We can conclude that based on the Trotsky-Cannoncriteria for entryism that SAlt does not satisfy that revolutionary standard.
A second criteria for entryism is the class character of theorganization that one enters. Clarifying this point requires understanding thenature of the “class line.” It is necessary for Marxists to recognize the lineseparating working class organizations from those of the bourgeoisie on theother side of the line. Moreover, it is imperative to educate workers to break frombourgeois organizations. Blurring the class line confuses issues and only aidsthose who want to channel workers back into support for capitalist politics, whichcan only damage the struggle for socialism.
When it comes to the class line, the Socialist Party of America for all itsfaults was a reformist working class party. By contrast, DSA functionsas a pressure group inside the Democratic Party, a bourgeois-imperialistparty. While many DSA members claim that their chapters do “good work” and arenot connected with the national organization, the local and national are notseparate. For one, dues money from members goes to the national organizationwhich uses that to fund Democratic Party election campaigns. While it may betrue that some local members do good work, we can also say the same aboutDemocrats and Republicans who do good work on a local level. Should we thensupport the Democrats or Republicans because we like “good work” done by theirlocal members? Ultimately, talk about “good work” by local DSA members servesas an excuse to channel people into an organization that materially supportsthe Democratic Party. While the analogy is not exact, Trotsky exposedsimilar opportunist arguments of those who differentiated between the “good”rank-and-file versus the “bad” leadership in bourgeois organizations such asthe Kuomintang:
Toconsider the Kuomintang not as a bourgeois party, but as a neutral arena ofstruggle for the masses, to play with words about nine-tenths of the Left rankand file in order to mask the question as to who is the real master, meant toadd to the strength and power of the summit, to assist the latter to convertever broader masses into “cattle,” and, under conditions most favorable to itto prepare the Shanghai coup d’etat.
Even though DSA has passed a number of left-sounding resolutions atits conventions, this has done nothing to change their fundamental orientationtoward the Democratic Party and imperialism. In 2016 and 2020, DSA supportedBernie Sanders despite his record. Currently, there are nearly 200 elected membersof DSA including AlexandriaOcasio-Cortez, RashidaTlaib, and JamaalBowman who are all members of the Democratic Party. As Democrats, these DSA“electeds” support JoeBiden, strikebreaking,ApartheidIsrael, NATO,and imperialist war. Despite materially supporting the bourgeoisie, DSA hasmade no moves to discipline or expel any of these “electeds.” Finally, DSA’smembership is not being taught to fight these adaptations to imperialism, butas judged by their enthusiasm to campaign for AOC and other “electeds,” theyare being drawn ever deeper into the Democratic Party.
Despite the election of a “left” leadership at its 2023 Convention,DSA reconfirmed its relationship with the Democratic Party. For example, one (ironicallynamed) resolution that was passed, “ActLike an Independent Party” declared: “It is not advisable for us to form anindependent political party with its own ballot line at this moment.” Based onthis, “DSA commits to making electoral politics a priority for the next twoyears… [and] that DSA will continue to pursue an approach of tacticallycontesting partisan elections on the Democratic ballot line and other lineswhere viable.” This resolution merely recommits DSA to what has been called the“dirty break” strategy and not political independence. The “dirty break” means thatsocialists should use the Democratic Party ballot line before eventuallybreaking off to create their own party. The rhetoric of the “dirty break”promises a future break from the Democrats, but in practice that always provesto be an unreachable horizon. In effect, the “dirty break” amounts to a “dirtystay” inside the Democratic Party.
Achieving working classpolitical independence requires acting on it now and drawing organizationalconclusions. For example, the Comintern demanded communist parties adopt 21Conditions that necessitated removing open opportunists and reformists fromtheir ranks. Even though there are caucuses in DSA such as Red Labor thatadvocate a “clean break” with the Democrats, they have not been able to achievethis. At the 2023 DSA Convention, they proposed a “CleanBreak Resolution” that would “immediately pursue a clean, irrefutable, andpermanent break from the capitalist Democratic Party…” However, it is worthnoting that this resolution did not make it to the convention floor since it didnot gather the required 300 signatures (no doubt a sign of DSA’s organizationalconsensus on the Democrats). But even if the resolution was adopted, itseffective implementation would require removing AOC and every “elected” fromDSA along with all others who work for the Democratic Party. However, Red Laborand other “clean breakers” do not fully work out the implication of what this approachwould practically mean.
Has Israel’s recent war on Gaza changed DSA’s relationship with theDemocratic Party? DSA has made some tepid statements opposing Israel and someof its members have taken to the streets to protest the war. This has angeredlongtime members associated with the reformist politics of DSA’s founder MichaelHarrington. For example, Maurice Isserman (Harrington’s biographer) resignedand claimedthat DSA had been “captured by left sectarian “entryists.”” Other foundingmembers statethat DSA is now “beyond redemption” and that their positions on Palestine “lackbasic human empathy and solidarity.”
Perhaps DSA’s rhetoric does not please Isserman and others, but their practiceis fully in line with support for Apartheid Israel and their genocidal war inGaza. Shortly after October 7, AOC condemnedprotests against Israel’s war as “antisemitic.” Later in an October 16interview, AOC walked back herhalf-hearted opposition to Israel’s Iron Dome and statedthat she would now vote for it:
PHILLIP: So, you would vote yestoday if it came to the United States Congress, additional funding for the IronDome?
OCASIO-CORTEZ: I think if it was explicitly around that. I have concerns aboutwhite phosphorus. I have concerns about the respect for humanitarian -- abouthuman rights and ensuring that we have humanitarian aid going through. But onthe sole principle of Iron Dome and defense, I absolutely think there's anopenness, for sure.
Despite nominal calls for a ceasefire, AOC and the Squad have previouslyvoted to fund the IDF with the weapons that are now carrying out genocide inGaza. In addition on November 28, AOC and other members of the Squad also votedin favor of recognizing Israel as a “Jewish state.” All these actions by DSA’s“electeds” that materially support Israel make their token opposition to theGaza war completely meaningless.
The simple truth is that entryism in DSA resembles an opportunistversion of Inception with two dream levels. On the first level, there isDSA which is itself an entryist organization inside the Democratic Party.Whether utilizing the language of “Realignment”, “dirty break”, “inside/outside”,or the “party surrogate”, they are attempting to transform the Democrats from abourgeois party into a social democratic party. In other words, they are tryingto transform the Democrats into something they are fundamentally not. On thesecond level, entryists in DSA are pursuing the same effort to transform DSAfrom an adjunct of the Democrats into an independent socialist party. Fallingthat deep into the entryist dream logic ensures that one will never wake up butforever remain trapped in the political limbo of the Democratic Party.
Revolutionary Regroupment
Given the analysis above, there was never a moment when a “FrenchTurn” in DSA was either principled or feasible. The DSA is not an arena ofstruggle for revolutionaries, but a safety valve for the Democratic Party. Aclean break with the Democrats requires a clean break with DSA.
While many well-meaning DSA members acknowledge this, they stillclaim that they have nowhere else to go. However, instead of advocatinghalf-hearted entryism or encouraging a “left” caucus in DSA, communists andsocialists should build our own organizations. That way, there will be a placefor disillusioned DSA members and other unaffiliated communists to join.There are also existing groups that leftists can find a home in such as LeftVoice and Firebrand, among others. However, small organizations,even if they are rooted in the class struggle, are not enough. Rather, aprocess of revolutionary regroupment is needed.
Regroupment cannot be achieved by uniting on the basis of thelowest common denominator or a “big tent” which papers over genuine differences.Genuine revolutionary regroupment requires bringing together workers and cadrefrom different organizations around the program of revolutionary Marxismleading to the formation of a real communist party.
In the meantime, there are opportunities for revolutionaries toconduct principled work together around the united front. From the threats ofrising inflation, transphobic reactionaries, fascist irrationalism, and nuclearwar, capitalism is slouching toward barbarism. To fight back, united frontaction is necessary. Trotsky laid outthe basic approach for communist participation in a united front:
Weparticipate in a united front but do not for a single moment become dissolvedin it. We function in the united front as an independent detachment. It isprecisely in the course of struggle that broad masses must learn fromexperience that we fight better than the others, that we see more clearly thanthe others, that we are more audacious and resolute. In this way, we shallbring closer the hour of the united revolutionary front under the undisputedCommunist leadership.
As opposed to a popular front which includes an alliance with parties ofthe bourgeoisie, a united front is based on the mobilization of working class organizations independent fromthose of the ruling class. Organizations that adhere to a united front wouldrally around certain common points such as no support for the Democrats orimperialism. However, a united front does not mean organizations would need tobury political disagreements. Instead, they would look for the areas where theycan come together to achieve practical results. A united front would build thefighting capacity of workers and allow them to successfully challenge theruling class. Not only does the united front strengthen the immediate struggleof workers, but it opens them to the vision of going further and overthrowingcapitalism.
The French Turn and entryism into DSA are not on the agenda fortoday’s revolutionary left. However, we possess the same goal as Trotsky andCannon in the 1930s: the creation of a vanguard organization ofrevolutionaries. This will not be achieved by pseudo-entryism or adapting toopportunism. Rather, the path forward requires the principled work ofrevolutionary regroupment and the united front.
See Robert J. Alexander, InternationalTrotskyism 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement (Durham: DukeUniversity Press, 1991), 348-351.
Leon Trotsky, The Crisis in theFrench Section (1935-36) (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1977), 162-63.
James P. Cannon, The History ofAmerican Trotskyism 1928-1938: Report ofa Participant (New York: Pathfinder Books, 2002), 283. For additionbackground see Bryan D. Palmer, “The French turn in the United States: James P.Cannon and the Trotskyist entry into the Socialist Party, 1934–1937,” LaborHistory (2018): 1-29 and Jacob A. Zumoff, “The Left in the United Statesand the Decline of the Socialist Party of America, 1934–1935,” Labour/LeTravail Issue 85 (Spring, 2020): 165-198.
Cannon 2002, 233-234.
Ibid. 283.
Ibid. 237.
Ibid. 238.
Ibid. 271.
For more details on theTrotskyists in the SPA see Bryan D. Palmer, James P. Cannon and theEmergence of Trotskyism in the United States, 1928-38 (Chicago: HaymarketBooks, 2023), 815-1051.
Cannon 2002, 286.
Ibid. 301.
Leon Trotsky, “A ‘Critical’Adaptation to Centrism,” in Naomi Allen and George Breitman, ed., Writingsof Leon Trotsky 1936-37 (New York: Pathfinder Books, 1978), 307.
Cannon 2002, 285.
942.
As Christopher Lasch said about MichaelHarrington’s Realignment strategy, radical change can only become a viableprospect when serious organizations are created outside of the DemocraticParty:
“[Harrington]is correct in saying that there are no new social forces automatically evolvingtoward socialism (which is what “democratic planning” comes down to).Presumably this means that radical change can only take place if a newpolitical organization, explicitly committed to radical change, wills it totake place. But Harrington backs off from this conclusion. Instead he seems topredicate his strategy on the wistful hope that socialism will somehow takeover the Democratic party without anyone realizing what is happening. He admitsthat “there is obvious danger when those committed to a new morality thusmaneuver on the basis of the old hypocrisies.” But there is no choice, becauseradicals cannot create a new movement “by fiat.” It is tempting, Harringtonsays, to think that the best strategy for the Left might be to “start a partyof its own.” But this course would not work unless there were already an “actualdisaffection of great masses of people from the Democratic Party.”
Christopher Lasch, The Agony of the American Left (New York: Alfred A.Knopf, Inc., 1969), 198-199.
