 As Executive Chairman of the American Communist Party, I'd like to analyze the recent 'sweeping victories' of the DSA in an objective matter. I'm far from a delusional sectarian blind to clearly observable shifts in US politics, but I also find the commentary surrounding these events lacking in basic Marxist analysis. Hype is building around the DSA as a consequence of two NYC “Democratic Socialist” candidates securing congressional primary victories, extending the momentum of Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral election last year. Suddenly, leftist ‘purity testing’ appears irrelevant and impotent. ‘Results’ speak for themselves: You cannot really argue with winning actual seats of power on the basis of millions of voters. In comparison to the various sects that predominate the American radical left - or worse yet, “principled” leftists who lack any collective organization at all - the ‘objective, clear, and obvious’ recent victories by the DSA appear to break the decades-long trend of obscurity, irrelevance, and marginalization by the radical left. CORE DIFFERENCES WITH THE PAST Bernie Sanders normalized words like “socialism” in US politics over a decade ago. There’s nothing new about “DSA members” securing victory in Congress. The main difference is that there was no clear direction of momentum. AOC herself was very selective about advertising her affiliation with the DSA. The key difference today is momentum. Zohran’s victory, and now the two congressional primary victories, make the DSA appear decisively relevant in ways it had never before been. Today’s context is crucial: Currently, the Democratic Party lacks any positive vision. Trump’s election in 2024 discredited the older generation of Democratic Party politics. The DSA, though weakened, had built itself up for a decade as the default repository of ‘alternative,’ youthful politics within the Democratic Party. It seized upon this vacuum and has capitalized off of Trump’s rapid deterioration of popularity across the nation (economic grievances compounded by the Epstein files and Iran war). That is why the DSA has become seriously relevant in ways it never was before. I myself have pointed out the fact that it’s not hard for leftists to win in NYC and that’s not a proxy for the nation. But there’s nothing else going on in the Democratic Party - the only officially recognized opposition party today - that has any semblance of vision or energy, and this has seized the attention of the entire nation. CLASS ANALYSIS: BURSTING THE BUBBLE So, it's a no brainer. The DSA is surely an organic, rising socialist movement in the United States! Except, it's really not. The key distinction historically between bourgeois and proletarian politics (which gives rise to 'socialist movements') are the material foundations of the political power itself. So where did the actual material foundations - I'm talking about money, by the way - behind this 'DSA momentum' actually come from? It definitely doesn't come from the proletariat. In the political class struggle, there are two forms of material power: One rooted in support from the bourgeoisie, and one that arises from the collective power of the proletariat. In the past, the proletariat first organized itself into trade unions, which accumulated vast revenues from dues that provided the foundation of an independent, proletarian Party. That's how the Socialist Party in America came to be a century ago. But in both congressional primaries that saw Democratic Socialist victories, organized labor with the sole exception of UAW 9A, sided with the incumbent/establishment candidates. Worse, UAW 9A is not even primarily a proletarian union, but is more like a petty-bourgeois, pencil-pushing professional guild. Basically every other form of organized labor sided with the losing side. Surely, this is just the privileged labor aristocracy, opposing a new mass of true proletarians gate kept out of the labor bureaucracy! PETTY BOURGEOIS PROFESSIONALS, NOT PROLETARIANS Exit polling about the congressional primaries are currently sparse, but if Mamdani's 2025 Democratic Primary election is anything to go by, this is also wrong. According to the New York Times interactive precinct analysis (June 25, 2025): Mamdani performed stronger than rivals in precincts where the majority of residents are college graduates, and in middle-income and higher-income neighborhoods. Cuomo had more support in lower-income neighborhoods and among the NYC working class. Mamdani excelled in renter-heavy gentrifying neighborhoods often associated with upper-middle-class young professionals. Even the exit polls of the general election prove that Mamdani's margins over Cuomo among the proletariat were much smaller than among the more affluent petty-bourgeois professionals. When we use education alone as a proxy we even find:
Note that 57.5% of NYC adults (population age 25 and over) have no college degree. That means that voter turnout itself was skewed in favor of the professional petty-bourgeois who already find large concentration in cities like NYC relative to the rest of the country. Surely the momentum built by the DSA following Mamdani's victory might have reversed this awkward trend? Far from it. Here's a breakdown from all three recent congressional primary victories: NY-13 is probably the most 'working class' district in comparison to the other two districts that saw 'Democratic Socialist' or 'progressive' (Lander) victories. But based on an analysis of precincts
NY-7 is a a combination of gentrified neighborhoods and working class Latino neighborhoods. (Brooklyn (Bushwick, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Ridgewood areas) and Queens (Long Island City, Astoria, etc.))
The recent 'DSA' sweep is not driven by the working class. It represents a strong consolidation of force, solidarity, and will by the professional petty-bourgeoisie. But the fact that the Democratic establishment is openly getting nervous about these recent primaries is telling. In contrast to Mamdani's campaign, neither of the two DSA candidates received support from the Working Families Party. There are some signs that indicate Mamdani has, in some sense, 'gone rogue.' The "Grassroots" Mamdani Myth In contrast to the preposterous narratives that Mamdani was able to gain momentum on the basis of 'grassroots support' and 'beat the establishment,' a basic examination of facts tells a very different picture. Zohran Mamdani is not a modern day Eugene Debs. He is not some organic, grassroots working class leader selected by the masses to represent a newly militant and organized proletarian. Zohran also did not just spontaneously become 'popular' one day and take off. Mamdani's political origins are thoroughly rooted inside of the bourgeois political machine. This is not sectarian gibberish about his ideology. It is on the basis of recycled billionaire money and donations that Mamdani acquired his political relevance and that is a fact. Zorhan Mamdani was able to tap into $4.47 million dollars from billionaire backed and funded Super PACs, PACs, nonprofits, and NGOs. Before the Democratic congressional primary, Zohran Mamdani received at least ~$1.5M in support from PACs. On March 29, 2025, the Working Families Party voted to support, endorse, and lend their resources to Zohran Mamdani. The WFP is a front group of the financial capitalist class, having received $23.7 million from George Soros alone since 2016! Confining ourselves to Soros' Open Society alone, which severely understates things, key activist groups, NGOs, and nonprofit networks which were decisive in the rise of Zohran Mamdani had a long history of receiving millions of dollars from the Open Society foundations. The following organizations represent just some of the vast infrastructure, resources and institutions that were necessary for Mamdani to be relevant in the first place, which simultaneously exist only thanks to donations from George Soros' Open Society Foundations:
This is by no means an exhaustive list. It represents only some of the organizations allied to Zohran's campaign, which were indispensable on the campaign, activist, staffing and operations ecosystem that was a condition of Zohran's success and which his 'grassroots momentum' simply took for granted. Activist-NGO-Philanthropy Ecosystem Propagandists of the DSA will often cite the organizational power of their 'grassroots socialist movement' as being primarily responsible for the rise of Zohran Mamdani. The truth is, the majority of the organizers of Zohran's campaign in the DSA were already submerged in a huge activist-NGO-nonprofit political ecosystem tied at the hip to the Democratic Party. It's known that DSA is not a political party, but it's not even a real socialist organization. It's one of the many network-pools that people loosely affiliate with, while often times being 'members' of dozens of other organizations. What drives people into these affiliation-networks is not really different from what drives young models to attend depraved sex parties at billionaire mansions. Money and career advancement. I'm not claiming that these organizations SOLELY depend upon billionaires like Soros. I'm claiming that without that support, they COULD NOT HAVE, in the first place, had a 'fighting chance.' That is the condition and premise of their ability to tap into resources - not crowdfunding from the working class. For example, take the American Communist Party. Why can't we tap into these organizations and networks that the DSA does, which recycle the vast resources of the billionaire class?
Your particular views on these matters do not actually matter. They are objectively a proxy of having positions that are different from the hegemonic bourgeoisie, and therefore an objective proxy of organizational independence from the bourgeois hegemony. The point is not whether you should agree with us on these matters. The point is: Do you even have the rational, discursive freedom to agree with us? You don't, because if you do, you get cut off from the networks that are decisive for acquiring 'political relevancy.' The Double Standard: DSA vs. ACP I am far from interested in being reductive regarding Mamdani and the DSA. Although, that is very generous of me. Because Jackson sat down with Tulsi Gabbard like 8 years ago (just as all other alt-media figures did), DSA members continue to insist that the ACP owes its existence entirely to her. Unlike them, nothing the ACP has ever done, has presupposed support from billionaires or any other members of the bourgeoisie. Yet they are confident enough in labeling us as bad-faith actors because Jackson took a photo with Tulsi Gabbard and made AI memes of him beside Trump years ago. Imagine if we subjected DSA to even 1% of the scrutiny they tried to subject to the ACP - if we traced its key organizers, leaders, and their affiliations in the broader DNC-aligned activist/political ecosystem. If we were even 1% as reductive as they are, it would be an open and shut case: They are direct proxies for the imperialist bourgeoisie and nothing more than that. ACP relies solely on support from its own primarily working class cadre. Nearly half of whom are actual, blue-collar proletarians - compared to the DSA, which can boast what, 10%? We have no readily-made resources or infrastructure we can draw from. They take these things for granted like taking air for granted to breathe. Yet no one knows the real price of political independence more than the ACP. And whether you agree with us or not is immaterial: We are independent, and that alone is why we are not as 'successful' as the DSA at the moment. The cynical, unprincipled, opportunist DSA propagandists will respond: Too bad, so sad, get your money up! But when the ACP does seek to address this problem pragmatically, in a way that does not infringe upon its political independence - Party enterprises - we get 'canceled' by these same fuckers for being 'landlords' and 'capitalists.' Despite owning zero rental properties! But were it not for the philanthropic support of the capitalist class and landlords, they would not have any legs to stand on in the first place! Zohran vs. Cuomo: Opposing Reductionism I'm aware of the fact that Zohran's opponents got more money. I'm also aware that the majority of Zohran's funding came from 'small donations.' Although this is itself misleading: Were it not for the giant PACs that spent millions of dollars on advertisements, astroturfing, etc. - Zohran would not have been able to raise as much money as he did in the first place. In the same way that advertising is indispensable for the sale of a product - 'selling' Zohran's campaign was also accomplished in large-part thanks to existing infrastructural support by PACs and other billionaire-funded organizations. Both Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani depended on support from the big bourgeoisie. The difference is that Zohran obviously got less support. That is why, for the purposes of an objective analysis, it is meaningless to be reductive. Zohran may have depended on the bourgeois political machine, but it alone was not enough to carry him to victory - or get the ball rolling for DSA's current 'sweeping momentum.' I simply point this out because most people are too cynical to understand that not everyone interested in politics takes for granted the vast institutional and infrastructural support that comes from minimal alignment with the bourgeoisie on key issues. People laugh at how small and irrelevant the American Communist Party is in 'comparison' to the DSA - but it really is an organization that, in addition to being only two years old, began from scratch had only two forms of 'capital' to begin with:
People, for that reason, dismiss us as a 'party of online influencers,' but when they do that, they are implicitly admitting that this is our sole form of 'starting capital' - as opposed to the vast resources that come from minimally acquiescing to the Democratic shitlib machine. Our leftist opponents seem to take those resources for granted, as somehow not fundamentally and materially attaching them to the bourgeoisie, but we do not and can not. DSA Gone Rogue? So, if and only when we take for granted support from the bourgeoisie (and not the organized proletariat) - what is the real decisive factor behind the DSA's existing momentum? I think there are signs Zohran, the DSA, etc. are 'going rogue.' They are beginning to make the Democratic establishment feel nervous. Many of my own comrades will not be receptive to such an observation - but it does us no good to be blind to reality, and confine ourselves to the various slogans and 'left-wing' truisms about Zohran, et. al being Zionist shills of the Democratic Party. These are truisms, but now it's on us to explain the contradictions that appear to emerge among the bourgeoisie. A Rebellion by the Professional Petty Bourgeoisie The professional petty-bourgeoisie is today characterized by the following characteristics:
In places like New York City, the professional petty-bourgeoisie is concentrated enough geographically, and in sheer volume of population and numbers - that it can band together (like a fasces, if you will), unite, and become a major political force. This strategy cannot scale nationally for the simple reason that in other parts of the country, winning over the working class as a mass is electorally decisive. The 'top-heavy' strategy of consolidating the professional petty-bourgeoise, and then brute-forcing their way into garnering influence and hegemony, with more marginal victorious leads among the working class - is not tenable in regions where the professional petty-bourgeoisie is less concentrated or capable of collective self-organizing. But the interesting factor is that the collective self-organization of the professional petty-bourgeoisie has become an alternative source of momentum, power and hegemony to the institutions of the big bourgeoisie. The masses are always the prize. In traditional Marxism, proletarian versus bourgeois forms of leadership/organization compete over hegemony over the popular masses. In the case of the DSA, we find neither proletarian organization, nor the simple bourgeois institutional hegemony - we find an organized rebellion by the professional petty-bourgeoisie, splintering off as a rogue force from the bourgeois institutional hegemony itself. It was able to do this in New York City, because the professional petty-bourgeois are concentrated there, while themselves simultaneously constituting a politically decisive electoral mass. Why This Cannot Scale Nationally or Even in New York State DSA victories depend on a top-heavy strategy of electorally suppressing or marginalizing the proletariat (largely lulled as it is by the bourgeois hegemony) and massively mobilizing educated, professional segments of the population. Though a brute-force approach, massive turnout by the professional petty-bourgeoisie combined with 'grassroots' media campaigns, allow for comparatively slim, yet observable victories even in largely working class neighborhoods and precincts. Obviously the affluent bourgeoisie, and the wealthy/well-to-do layers of the professional petty-bourgeoisie can be completely marginalized, since they are not numerous enough to constitute a mass. In New York City, the majority of the population are proletarians. Yet the professional petty-bourgeoisie constitutes either a majority or a massive plurality of the actual electorate. The brute-force approach cannot scale. I'm not even sure how viable it is in cities outside of New York City. What is for certain is that in regions of the country where the professional petty-bourgeois do not constitute the necessarily decisive mass, they will not be a able to brute-force their way into victory, however self-organized and self-conscious they are. To carry momentum outside of enclaves like NYC, the DSA would have to convert its organizational force into something more selfless then it currently is: Aimed at mobilizing not simply its own professional petty-bourgeois class brethren, but the working class masses of the country. It would have to convert its vast petty-bourgeois professional apparatus into service for the American proletariat, and really compete with the bourgeois hegemony over the proletarian masses/electorate as the prize. Right now, it only regards the professional petty-bourgeois masses concentrated in NYC as the prize. It lacks even the discursive intelligence to recognize that the proletarian masses are quite separate from the 'masses' that constitute the core of the DSA. In all their self-serving narcissism, they truly believe they are the working class. But it's not so. And what material incentive do DSA members have to be selfless, as old petty-bourgeois members of the socialist intelligentsia at least tried to be?The material incentives behind the growth of the DSA, in the first place, are based on the self-serving class interests of the professional petty-bourgeoisie. Bursting the Bubble The truth is, the DSA is now lining itself up for electoral slaughter by the hegemonic bourgeoisie at the national level, who, at the present moment, have a much greater stranglehold on the actual working class than the DSA does (both the Democratic and Republican parties) - even in New York City itself! The DSA is able to ignore this problem in New York City, since the professional petty-bourgeoisie reaches a critical enough mass threshold to 'brute force' their way into electoral victory, skirting by from very slim margins of victory (and even in some cases defeat!) in places with large working class concentration. The DSA could potentially be converted into an apparatus for the construction of something like proletarian hegemony - despite its origins in the bourgeois political machine - but I consider that deeply unlikely. Pikerdom - a Major Factor I think a major factor behind the DSA's momentum, in addition to all the material and class factories I just mentioned, lies in the support and direction provided by Hasan Piker. The Iskraist understanding of politics comprehends that the concentration of strategy and vision through media is fundamental. I straight-up, deadass think that Piker is the only thing that is unifying the current DSA momentum - not even necessarily Zohran Mamdani himself. ACP was derided for being based in 'streamers' and 'content creators' but I know first hand the power of having a dedicated live-streaming community and how that can translate into real-world power pretty directly. Hasan Piker's community is much larger than mine and has existed for much longer. It is clear to me that Hasan Piker is a decisive factor here, and that is not because he is mobilizing the masses. It's because he is mobilizing huge quantities of personnel, activists, staffers, etc. - who are all more or less under the influence of his vast content-creation network, community and parasocial orbit. It may sound ridiculous to many, but we are now living in an age where live-streaming personalities are actually, directly politically relevant. I call Piker's influence and mini-hegemony 'Pikerdom.' Aside from the pure media reach provided by Jackson Hinkle and Midwestern Marx, the ACP was able to get off the ground (as modestly as it was) from two factors:
Right now, DSA's current momentum appears to be rooted in:
What happens now? At a certain point, a decisive confrontation will occur between the DSA/Pikerdom and the Democratic Party establishment. I think the DSA will ultimately lose that confrontation. The DSA/Pikerdom will have to learn the hard way that they lack the material foundations to challenge the Democratic Party because they do not have any independent material basis. The independent material basis provided by support from the professional petty-bourgeoisie alone in NYC cannot scale nationally - because at the national scale, the professional petty-bourgeoisie alone cannot provide the material basis for anything, especially in Swing states. At some decisive point, activists in the DSA will learn the hard way that they're going to have to tap into material foundations created primarily by the proletariat (whether that is organized labor or something else) in order to challenge those created by the bourgeoisie. The American Community Party will definitely attempt to capitalize off of this loss, having upheld the correct line and maintained the correct analysis through it all. The masses of declassed professional petty-bourgeois will either be lumpenized or proletarianized - and I believe the majority will probably be lumpenized. These are the conditions that will make abrupt political revolution and civil war inevitable in this country. As Executive Chairman of the American Communist Party, I'm fully aware that we ultimately benefit from the DSA's renewed 'momentum.' Ideologically, the overton window is shifting. The DSA is basically gathering together future Communist Party cadre for us. They are creating a critical mass of personnel and activists dedicated to building out some kind of organization. I am currently banking on the expectation that enough of them (though not the majority) will be won over to the ACP's strategic vision once the bubble bursts and they realize that what they're doing in NYC can't scale nationally. Proletarianization As the professional petty-bourgeoisie are declassed, those among them who proletarianize - and this characterizes the majority of blue-collar members of the ACP - will be the most receptive to joining. Funnily enough, scores of these petty-bourgeois professionals were outraged by SwampCommunists' (of all people, what a surprise!) recent tweet, saying: We dont need more or better Marxist professors we need a Marxist organized proletariat. Drop out of college and go move boxes for UPS or come lash shipping containers at the port https://x.com/SwampCommunist/status/2066200258732868010 It clearly struck a nerve, all the glasses-wearing petty-bourgeois professionals were soy raging over it. But the sad truth is that they may not have a choice. For the bulk of young professional petty-bouregeoisie now represented by the DSA, both present and aspiring, they have two choices:
These are the only viable 'career' prospects that offer a way of living compatible with the current material conditions facing the nation. The lumpen will probably just become psycho killer-clown fascists. At present time, the American Communist Party is largely drawn from people who made the latter choice. All the peculiar qualities and characters of the ACP - including its 'cancelable' positions on foreign policy and culture - reflect this class character. The DSA's momentum is unsustainable when you actually analyze its material foundations and class character. I know many people are hyped up and excited, but facts are stubborn things. Time will tell if this material analysis proves correct. Some people like to make fun of the ACP and compare it to the DSA. The truth is, we are an organization and Party of the future. We could not possibly be as 'relevant' as the DSA is now, since the majority of the current generation have not accepted the inevitability of proletarianization. But without accepting proletarianization, proletarian politics is impossible for the current generation, which either aspires to become or have already become petty-bourgeois professionals. Originally published on Haz Al-Din's X account
3 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
June 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed