Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
A review of the largely positive insights found in Groundwork's theory of Class Alignment, and the seeds of a coherent strategy of position.
(Image credit: Jorge Láscar, CC-BY-SA 2.0)
Written by Sylus S.
I must first begin by congratulating my comrades in Groundwork for a successful convention, as it is always so wonderful when we get to demonstrate the value of deliberative democracy. I am especially delighted to learn that Daniel, Lyra, and Sumter’s elaboration of what they term “class alignment” has been ratified.1 Whilst it is not, from my perspective, a perfectly agreeable theoretical framework; it is a very good one and two great steps forward in cohering around a proper strategy of position. Thus I hope by exploring the many positives of this theorem, and a noteworthy drawback, we can begin working toward that strategy together. We cannot agree on every little detail of course, but a broad and collaboratively built framework is very possible.
Two Steps Forward
I believe the description of class alignment contains three essential premises to begin answering the definitive question for socialists: how to seize power for the working class. The first premise is centering the fact that our effort is to win people from trusting in and following the politico-ideological leadership of the bourgeoisie, to the leadership of DSA.2 This battle for hegemony is the primary question of seizing political power, because it is precisely the question of whether or not the masses will “be on our side of the balance of forces when we confront capital on the shop floors, in the streets, and at the ballot box.”3 By laying down this cornerstone, we are naturally led to understand that the second question of seizing power is how to obtain hegemony?
This question of ‘how’ brings us to the second vital premise. In order to obtain and expand our hegemony, we cannot simply do more propagandizing. People do not simply do and believe things because you make a really well worded argument, those arguments must resonate with their practical experience. Democratic structures must be established so as to ensure members realize the potential of collective decision making, as well as to insist on fighting for their interests. Taking on such fights against the boss is then another educational experience, concretely demonstrating the power of workers acting in solidarity with one another. These lessons are what can then make socialism seem both rational and possible.
“Can” is the operative word however; these structures do not inherently reproduce socialists or our politics. As noted by our comrades in Groundwork, one need look no further than O’Brien’s Teamsters to see reaction reign over a militant and democratic union.4 Which leaves us with one last premise, the active need for expansive political intervention! That propaganda in isolation is insufficient does not discount the ultimate need for it. In turning to Lenin they note the need to agitate “with regard to every concrete example of this oppression.”5 Aforementioned practical education is reinforced and cultivated toward a more developed model by these interventions. For example, a union member might note that their union’s collectively-won campaign for higher wages could just as well be a community-wide battle for their children’s education; or perhaps they might remind their fellow workers of how chauvinistic politics betray many of those who stand beside them on a picket line.
A Third Step Forward?
In isolation, most of these premises are rather banal observations. Yet when one remembers our central goal of achieving hegemony, we can better understand the coupled need for correctly structuring unions and intervening with agitation as individuals. That is to say, since our foundational goal is to sufficiently educate the masses for the sake of socialist hegemony, we may thus understand those supporting tasks to be the construction of what Lenin termed “a school of communism” by which to fulfill this objective.6 I believe this is exactly how we must go about things if we are to enlist millions in our quest for a better world.
Since all the basic ingredients exist by which to cook up the school of communism thesis, there is only one more necessary step to take for our comrades in Groundwork. That is to recognize unions are only one example of such a school, and many potential or already existing institutions may also serve in this role. Not just other types of unions, such as those for tenants, but virtually every social environment serves to construct its participants’ foundational understanding of how the world and society work. Thus all these formulas about reshaping the structure of unions so that we can effectively win them to socialist leadership must be applied to the wider range of civil society.
For the sake of clarifying illustration, we might look at the notion of one’s commute to work. The Long Island suburbanite drives into New York with their ‘individually’ purchased car, competing with similar individuals for space on the road. Eventually they move through the city, separated from its inhabitants, and condemned to learn about them only through the (capitalist owned and operated) media. In this simple example one can already begin to imagine the atomized thinking which would ferment, as well as how this particular configuration for urban design intersects to strengthen the educational potential of an organism like Fox News.
I could spend quite some time going over these various institutions and their permutations, but I have already done so elsewhere and do not wish to be more repetitive than is necessary.7 What matters for now is to reiterate the need to change these configurations of civil society so that we can effectively fight for hegemony. To mitigate the previous example in favor of one in which that person gets to work by way of a collectively funded means like the bus. To be amongst their neighbors rather than divided by a car door, so that they are not dependent upon deceptive pundits for understanding their fellow man. Simply put, the goal is to make it so that the masses are scholastically enlightened and brought into regular contact. Unions alone cannot do this though; rather, they are a particularly vital piece in a broader puzzle.
One Step Back
Some time is spent noting the role of the rank and file as well as staff, especially the former, in establishing both the proper structure and agitational intervention with regard to unions. On that matter I have little to add. On the matter of the state however, I cannot be so muted, nor unfortunately can I be quite so positive as with my previous remarks. There are good impulses, such as the recognition for synthesizing labor and electoral work so as to ensure that the former brings resources to the latter, and the latter enables us to succeed in the former in ways which are otherwise impossible given current legal restraints; though again I would note the need to generalize that into other areas of civil society. But what then is my objection?
My objection is this muddled understanding of what actually constitutes state power, and what our interactions with it can thus look like. An “or” separates the notion of accomplishing such reforms through electing politicians who can simply bring the votes to pass laws, counterposed to “winning concessions from the state via campaigns.”8 On a practical level this is problematic because our electeds rarely, if ever, succeed in negotiating a legislative majority and executive support without such campaigns. Even if they were to have such at a lower level of the federal pyramid, they would still likely be compelled into negotiations with the state or federal government, and that would likely require a campaign too. The current budgetary and taxation disputes surrounding Zohran’s mayoralty are a partial example of this.9
On a purely theoretical level it is still wrongheaded regardless of how many electeds we have, because it reduces the state to elected politicians in a semi-neutral battlefield. There are entrenched bureaucracies which, even when we have an executive to fill their ranks, are still often drawn from the circles of progressive liberals. There are egomaniacal cops who will resist civilian oversight enshrined in law if they so please. There is an eternal sea of cash to shape not only the ‘principles’ of these forces; but capital and its bourgeois possessors can throw the economy and society into chaos if threatened. Since ‘the state’ incorporates all of this, the fact of the matter is that every gain for the working class is to some extent a concession from the state.
It follows from this fact that we cannot, in this structure, ever have labor “represent the interests of society as a whole” insofar as the state is concerned.10 The structure has been shaped such that this space is already filled by the owning class. If we want to change this, it is not simply a matter of making strong unions, but of constructing a new state which is actually bound to their interests. Whilst this does not change the more specific reform proposals, it does change some of the strategic framing. We need to be preparing electeds and workers for the fact that class struggle is more than just a tug-o-war over the existing state machinery, it is a struggle for the radical political goal of a new state altogether. It is the battle for a democratic-republic with a new constitution.
Firm Foundations for Cooperation
Whether we can ultimately agree on every strategic detail, or on the nature of the state, there remains much to celebrate in these developments from Groundwork’s congress. It is no small thing to elevate one’s strategic thinking from the most basic idea of organizing for organizing’s sake, to instead do so with specific aims as part of a strategic blueprint. Insofar as that blueprint is concerned with the chance to educate the masses on the class struggle, and once more I must note that it very much is in this case, I am nothing short of jubilant. As such, I wish our comrades in Groundwork the best of luck in developing this vision further on the NLC. Moreover, I hope we can expand these notions into the cohesive alteration of civil society, a task which I know any Montagnard would happily join Groundwork’s members in, whether that be at the national level or in their chapters.
If you’re interested in writing pieces for the Rose Garden, participating in reading discussions, and/or chatting with like-minded folks, make sure to join DSA and fill out the Rose Garden interest form!
Want to discuss this article with other DSA members? Visit the DSA Forums thread! Create an account at optin.dsausa.org.
References
Daniel C, Lyra S, Sumter A, “Laying the Groundwork for a Class Alignment Labor Strategy (Complete)” Groundwork, 2025.
Daniel C et. al, “Laying the Groundwork.” I find this formula of a “left-labor bloc” to be flawed, but that is ultimately part of much more extensive discussions best had at another time. In the end, it changes nothing else about what I say in this piece.
Daniel C et. al, “Laying the Groundwork.”
Daniel C et. al, “Laying the Groundwork.”
Daniel C et. al, “Laying the Groundwork.”
Vladimir Lenin, “Once Again On The Trade Unions, The Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin,” in Lenin’s Collected Works (Progress Publishers, 1965).
Sylus S, “Gramsci Primer & Modern Reflections,” The Rose Garden, 2025. Further notes on this may be found in section one, “ABCs of Gramsci.”
Daniel C et. al, “Laying the Groundwork.”
Sarah Davis, “Mamdani asks New York State to raise taxes on ‘ultra-wealthy’ to address city budget deficit,” The Hill, 2026.
Daniel C et. al, “Laying the Groundwork.”