How do US socialist organizations define a revolutionary situation?
In which we read a bunch of modern revolutionary socialist quotes
This is a "resource" blogpost. It is essentially just a collection of quotes. It will not be fun reading.
In “What is a revolutionary situation?”, I compiled a series of quotes from Lenin and Mao and condensed them into a short, simplified model of a revolutionary situation:
OA: Are workers so fucked that most would die for socialist revolution?
OR: Are workers way more fucked now than a decade ago?
SA: If they tried, could workers seize and wield state power?
SR: Could the rulers halt their infighting and crush the workers?
This model strongly suggests that a revolutionary situation does not exist in the United States, and it will not soon exist. This conclusion does not bother reformist socialists like me.
Revolutionary socialists disagree: They think socialist revolution in the United States is feasible and likely. As a result, revolutionary socialists often push back when I present this model. Perhaps I (a reformist socialist pigdog) incorrectly summarized these great revolutionary socialist leaders.
To bolster my case, I have collected definitions of a “revolutionary situation” from every revolutionary socialist organization in the United States with over 500 members, per MemLeftOrg. I’ve arranged them on a spectrum: From most-reformist to least-reformist.
The collection below shows two things:
Revolutionary socialist organizations with clear definitions of a revolutionary situation tend to be pessimists about the prospects of revolution in the United States.
Revolutionary socialist organizations with unclear definitions of a revolutionary situation also assert that revolution is both unpredictable and right around the corner.
What is my model?
I summarized Lenin’s and Mao’s views on revolution into a simplified four-part model:
Objective Absolute: Economic conditions & political repression of lower classes are so bad that most politically aware workers are “prepared to die for” socialist revolution
Objective Relative: Living conditions of lower classes are far worse than before, as in depression or war
Subjective Absolute: Lower classes are revolutionary, organized, and “strong enough to break” the old government and hold state power
Subjective Relative: Upper classes are “unable to rule and govern in the old way”; they are weaker, less organized, and not reactionary enough to beat down the lower classes
This model is useful because it generates specific predictions: A revolutionary situation is only possible when each of the four revolutionary conditions occur.
Unfortunately, most revolutionary socialists do not provide explicit models for their theories of revolution. This makes their theories impossible to test (and so they lose scientific value) and makes their theoretical predictions vague (and so they lose political value). Put another way: If your theory of revolution predicts that revolution is possible all the time, but not when it will happen or how likely it is to happen, then it predicts nothing at all.
The list below shows that those revolutionary socialists with the vaguest definitions of a revolutionary situation are those with the greatest hope for socialist revolution in the United States. That trend is not mere chance: Clearer thinking about the conditions of socialist revolution should lead one to pessimism for its prospects in the United States.
Communist Party USA
Communist Party USA (CPUSA) claimed about 20,000 members in 2024, but likely has around 5,000 dues-paying members. CPUSA is nominally communist and nominally upholds Leninism. In practice, CPUSA has strongly embraced democratic socialism, specifically the strategy of “realignment”.[1]
This combination of Leninist aesthetics and reformist praxis results in completely incoherent advocacy from CPUSA:
In 2019, CPUSA wrote that even running official CPUSA candidates risks spoiling elections against Democrats, because “the strategic goal at this moment in the struggle for socialism is to defeat the extreme right”. (As a result, CPUSA has run just 9 candidates since 2000. All were Democratic Party members or nonpartisan elections.)
In 2019, CPUSA also wrote that “what could be developing in the US today is a possible revolutionary situation”, that “the greatest danger” is “is allowing a revolutionary situation to slip”, and that “this is the socialist moment”, and “the time to be audacious”.
In short: CPUSA does not have a clear line on a revolutionary situation. Some CPUSA members argue that the United States is already in a revolutionary situation, while other CPUSA members argue that socialists must simply work with Democrats to defeat extreme-right Republicans.
Freedom Road Socialist Organization
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) claimed about 1,000 members in 2021. FRSO is a post-Maoist organization with an ideology that mixes Marxism-Leninism and democratic socialism.
How does FRSO define a revolutionary situation? In their 2022 Party Platform, FRSO states:
For revolutionary change to take place in the United States, three conditions need to be in place.
First, the broad masses of people—workers, the oppressed nationalities and others who are held down by the monopoly capitalists—need to arrive at the conclusion that they are unable to live in the old way, and need to be willing to fight to bring the old order to an end.
Second, the ruling class needs to be in real crisis, where it is divided against itself and unable to continue with business as usual.
And, finally, there needs to be a strong revolutionary organization, a communist party that is capable of navigating complex political situations and that can lead the fight to establish working class political power.
In the U.S. today, none of these conditions exist.
In short:
The oppressed classes cannot live in the old way. They are willing to revolt to end it.
The ruling class cannot live in the old way. They are in crisis. They are divided against themselves.
A communist party is strong enough and has the right strategy to win the revolution.
FRSO supports a model very similar to mine, with one difference. FRSO’s model does not contain the “objective relative” condition, in which the oppressed classes must be suffering worse than usual. This is a fairly minor difference, because the conditions in which the workers will be “willing to die” for socialist revolution are most likely to occur during a massive increase in suffering.
Despite having a slightly less restrictive model, FRSO agrees with me that revolutionary conditions do NOT exist in the United States today.
In fact, FRSO goes so far as to support tactical voting on the “Leftmost Viable Candidate” model: In a 2022 statement, FRSO wrote:
Our approach regarding the elections will take different forms in different places. Often, this will mean that those who are working in swing states must work to defeat Republican candidates. In places where the Republicans are very unlikely to win, organizers should vote against right-wing or centrist Democrats in favor of candidates with more progressive stances. Elections do matter and it would be a mistake to ignore them, even when both of the major parties represent the interests of the ruling class.
In short: FRSO broadly agrees with my model and my conclusion: The objective and subjective conditions for revolution are not present in the United States.
Socialist Alternative
Socialist Alternative (SAlt) claimed about 1,000 members in 2023. In 2024, Kshama Sawant and around 50 others split and regrouped behind “Workers Strike Back”. SAlt is a Trotskyist organization.
How does SAlt define a revolutionary situation? In a 2018 SAlt-published book, frequent SAlt writer Clare Doyle explains:
But as Lenin explained many times, a revolution only occurs when a number of factors coincide, and is successful only when four major conditions are fulfilled.
Firstly, faced with a profound crisis, the ruling class is incapable of governing in the old way and begins to split into different wings, each seeking a different solution to the crisis.
Secondly, the middle layers are in ferment.
Thirdly, the working class seeks a way out, not on the basis of the old society, but of a new order. It moves into battle in a determined fashion.
Fourthly, the most crucial condition is the existence at the head of the mass workers’ movement of a clear Marxist leadership, with the necessary strategy, tactics, and organization to guarantee victory.
In short:
The ruling class cannot live in the old way. They are in crisis. They are divided against themselves.
The middle class sees its “fate tied up with the success of the workers’ movement”.
The working class cannot live in the old way. They are willing to revolt to end it.
A communist party is strong enough and has the right strategy to win the revolution.
SAlt supports a model very similar to mine, with two differences: First, SAlt’s model does not contain the “objective relative condition”. Second, SAlt’s model adds alignment between the middle class and the workers. These are minor differences. If anything, SAlt’s model of revolutionary situations is more restrictive than mine.
SAlt does NOT make clear in this article (or any other that I could find) whether they think that a revolutionary situation in the United States exists or could soon exist.
In short: SAlt broadly agrees with my model, but does not clearly state their conclusion on whether a revolutionary situation exists.
Workers World Party
Workers World Party (WWP) likely has about 500 members. WWP is a second-campist Marxist-Leninist organization. (Think: Pro-China, pro-North Korea, pro-Assad, pro-Milosevic.)
How does WWP define a revolutionary situation? In a 2020 Workers World article, frequent WWP author Makasi Motema explains:
This critical perception is granted by the application of historical materialism. In 1915, Lenin described the conditions which indicate the rise of a “revolutionary situation” — a situation wherein the bourgeoisie can be overthrown and replaced with a dictatorship of the proletariat. The three conditions he described can be summarized as (1) when the ruling class is unable to maintain the status quo of their rule, (2) when there is a marked increase in suffering among the oppressed, and (3) when there is increasing resistance from the oppressed against their oppression.
In short:
The ruling class cannot live in the old way. They are in crisis.
The oppressed see increaseds suffering.
The oppressed increase their resistance to oppression.
Unlike all models reviewed thus far, the WWP’s model contains no “subjective absolute” condition. (In which the working class must be “strong enough to break” the old government.) Instead, Motema treats failure to break the old government as a failure to convert a revolutionary situation to a successful revolution, one that results from poor revolutionary leadership:
Lenin explained that there have been many revolutionary situations that did not carry over into revolution, and that the determining factor was the subjective change of revolutionary mass action[.] [….]
[A] revolutionary situation is a temporary, transient state. It is an opportunity for revolutionary change that can easily be squandered and lost by a dilatory, indecisive vanguard — with disastrous consequences for the proletariat. Such a disaster must be averted at all costs.
I hold that WWP’s model is too broad. It is not sufficient for workers to be suffering and the ruling class to be in crisis. Lenin repeatedly argues that a revolutionaty situation requires workers strong enough, and old government weak enough, that workers can seize state power. Suffering alone does not a revolution make.
WWP argues that a revolutionary situation exists in the United States:
If we analyze the current conditions of the class struggle in the U.S., there can be no doubt that the U.S. has entered into a revolutionary situation. [….] The question facing communists is not, are we in a revolutionary situation but, “What are you going to do about it?”
Given that WWP has an overly-broad definition of revolution, this claim does not surprise. WWP merely claims that workers are suffering more (listing the COVID pandemic, police brutality, and wage stagnation) and claims that “the state” is “weakening” (listing lower cop morale and lower US military recruitment rates). Even if we grant these premises, WWP does not demonstrate that organized workers are [1] strong enough to seize state power or [2] “willing to die for” socialist revolution. Without these, it is absurd to claim that socialist revolutionary conditions exist.
In short: WWP does not share my model or my conclusions. WWP’s model is too broad, which results in WWP’s conclusion that the United States is in a revolutionary situation.
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) likely has 2000 members. PSL split from WWP and shares the same second-campist Marxist-Leninist ideology. (Think: Pro-China, pro-North Korea, pro-Assad, pro-Milosevic.)
How does PSL define a revolutionary situation? More than every other communist organization, PSL leans on vague definitions. For example, in a 2022 Liberation School article, frequent PSL author Nino Brown provides a vague definition:
Further, a socialist revolution cannot take place without society entering into a profound crisis. […. quotes Lenin’s 1915 writing ….]
[R]evolutionary situations open when the cascading contradictions of capitalism, imperialism, and oppression force the current order to a standstill. Such objective conditions can emerge from economic, political, social, military, or ecological crises: such as the cascading crises of automation and the resulting job losses, the delegitimation of basic institutions of U.S. bourgeois democracy like presidential elections, the climate catastrophe, and the U.S. war drive against Russia and China.
But by themselves the contradictions of capitalism, which inevitably lead to crisis, do not make a revolution. [….] This is because revolutions require the combination of the above-mentioned objective conditions as well as the subjective forces capable of seizing on the revolutionary opening. [….] What was missing in [cases when revolutionary crises did not become successful socialist revolutions] was “the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass action strong enough to break or dislocate the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, ‘falls’, if it is not toppled over”.
In short:
Objective conditions force the current order to a standstill, such as in “economic, political, social, military, or ecological crises”.
Subjective forces (organized socialists) are not strong enough to break the old government.
This definition is not useful. Using the passage above, how can we test whether the objective conditions for revolution exist? How could we test whether bourgeois forces are weak enough to defeat?
We do not find more detailed definitions elsewhere. Take one example: PSL published a book titled Revolution Manifesto: Understanding Marx and Lenin’s Theory of Revolution. Given the title, one would assume that this book will define a revolutionary situation and discuss the revolutionary conditions which bring one about.
Is it found in chapter “How ‘The State and Revolution’ changed history”? No. After outlining the evolution of Lenin’s thought from 1916 to 1917 (centrist-Marxist “parliamentary revolution” to left-Marxist revolutionary workers’ councils), 20-year PSL Central Committee leader Brian Becker concludes with the assertion that capitalist crisis will soon yield revolution:
PSL anticipates that the current global contradictions emanating from imperialism and the repeated economic crises of capitalism will lead to a new wave of revolutionary mobilization and the revival of socialism as the only counterpoint to capitalism.
Is it found in “The U.S. state and the U.S. revolution”? No. After outlining the failures of the 1776 bougeois revolution in the United States, 20-year PSL Central Committee leader Eugene Puryear concludes with the assertion that only revolution can win socialism:
The only way to remake society is to uproot the institutions of elite power and replace them with institutions of popular and working-class power. [….] None of that is possible without a new power — a revolution.
The pattern repeats.
Even more than other communist organizations, PSL frequently emphasizes that revolution is not predictable. For example, Brian Becker spoke about the inability to predict revolutions in 2023:
Whenever revolutions happen, you know, beforehand, people say: “Revolution will never happen, you see how backward people are? You see how apathetic they are? They’re thinking about this that and the other.”
And then the revolution happens and all the pundits say: “That was inevitable. You could see that coming when you put 5 million people and take their doctor away. When you crushed them. When you make millions more homeless while the billionaire class is growing. That was inevitable!”
It only seems inevitable after the fact. Politics is dynamic. We don’t know exactly where we are in the historical continuum.
Lenin wasn’t predicting the revolution a year before it happened.
Five years before the civil war erupted that ended, at least formally, the system of slavery. If you had asked people, “Is the system about to be ended?” They would say: “No, look at the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, or the Dredd Scott decision of 1857. The Supreme Court and the whole country is going south.” Meaning, literally, slavery was gonna become the social system of the north and the south. And three years later, the civil war started. And five years after that, formal slavery was brought to an end.
You never know where you are in the historical continuum. We can’t control that. But we can control us. Who are we, what are we fighting for, are we confident, and could we bridge, or forge tactics and strategies that can reach our class and mobilize the masses of people? And that question completely is up to us. Do we answer it yes? Or do we say we’re unsure? Or do we say we’re too busy? Or we answer no?
In short, Becker argues that revolution is unpredictable and that socialists should always be organizing for a revolution.
PSL summarized this as:
Revolution always seems impossible until it happens. Then it seems obvious that it was inevitable.
PSL embraces, in both rhetoric and practice, the view that socialist revolution cannot be effectively modelled beforehand. This allows PSL leaders to argue that revolution is always possible, without having to argue whether it is probable.
In short: PSL does not clearly outline the objective and subjective conditions for revolution. PSL argues that revolutions are unpredictable, but that revolutionary conditions will exist in the United States.
Revolutionary Communists of America
Revolutionary Communists of America (RCA) claimed 600 members in 2024. RCA is a post-Trotskyist organization with unclear leanings.
How does RCA define a revolutionary situation? Like PSL above, RCA also has no clear definitions. For example, in a 2023 article titled “Can A Socialist Revolution Happen In The United States?”, RCA lists a series of revolutions around the world, does not define revolutionary situation or conditions, and then claims that a revolution in the United States is inevitable:
All of this goes to show that it is not the absolute level of want or poverty that makes a revolution, but rather the constant instability of the system, which eventually pushes the masses of workers to realize that they need to take matters into their own hands. For Marxists, this is the essence of a revolutionary situation. [….]
Even greater events are in our future. The question is not, “will a revolution happen?” but rather, when? And will we be prepared?
Similarly, in a 2024 article titled “Why We Will See a Revolution in Our Lifetime”, RCA lists a series of bad economic and climate trends, does not define revolutionary situation or conditions, and then claims that a revolution is inevitable:
Small groups of people can’t artificially create revolutionary upheavals. However, luckily for those of us who want to see an end to capitalism, the system itself is doing 99% of the work for us. The status quo can’t go on forever. [….]
Eventually, the pressure cooker of American society will explode. The incredible George Floyd movement was just a preview of what’s to come. [….]
A civil war between the rich and poor is just another name for revolution. That’s what’s on the horizon. It’s not a matter of if there will be a revolution, but when. And more importantly, will it succeed in overthrowing capitalism?
I cannot find any better definitions elsewhere in RCA material.
In short: RCA does not clearly outline the objective and subjective conditions for revolution. RCA argues that a socialist revolution in the United States, as “a civil war between the rich and poor” is “on the horizon”.
Conclusions and shilling
This blogpost showed two things:
Revolutionary socialist organizations with clear definitions of a revolutionary situation tend to be pessimists about the prospects of revolution in the United States.
Revolutionary socialist organizations with unclear definitions of a revolutionary situation also assert that revolution is both unpredictable and right around the corner.
The conclusion is obvious: When socialists think more clearly about revolution, we conclude that it is not likely in the United States. When we don’t, we fall into fantasies.
In short: Socialists should reject unclear thinking about revolution and embrace the fact that the United States will not soon see a revolutionary situation.
I write blogs on socialist and progressive topics. To support my work:
Subscribe on Substack:
Source: David Kennerly, 2024-08-18
Notes
[1] Funnily enough, CPUSA’s embrace of realignment puts CPUSA to the “right” of most DSA members.