Non-specific impressions¶

Non-specific impressions from the MUG congress:

1) There is a persistent liberal strain within the caucus, characterized by antipathy toward organizational and ideological rigor, as well as an almost mystical obsession with winning over the anticommunist clique of the DSA. "Non-specific" as in I'm obviously not about to talk about specific caucus business when it hasn't yet been publicly released. I have plenty of thoughts on that as well, but that'll have to wait. 2) The liberal strain tends to be consistently outnumbered and outvoted by those with a more ambitious horizon in mind for the organization (even if they first have to wade through overwrought debate over minutiae). 3) Even among the left of the caucus, there's a current of tacitly accepting liberal mythmaking with regard to the nature of revolution, AES, and democracy. For example, preoccupation with the concept of "bureaucratic bloat," guiding opposition to implementing explicit protocols. 4) The caucus seems to be one of the most politically developed Marxist organizations in the US, which is more a repudiation of the movement as a whole than a praise of the caucus. There is certainly a huge gulf between where MUG is and where a revolutionary org would need to be. 5) There seems to be a HUGE appetite for political development among MUG members and a clear recognition of how far they still need to go. Liberalism seems to be a fading force within the caucus, driven by a steady commitment to study. All in all, this does seem like a useful locus for building an actual revolutionary force in the US, if for no other reason that there is already a considerable number of Marxists there, engaged in purposeful study. It remains to be seen how productively that study will progress. One thing that is clear is that a crucial moment will come -- hopefully soon -- where MUG will need to develop itself into a faction capable of operating independently of the intractable, anticommunist grasp of DSA. It will need to Bolshevize.