Unity–Struggle–Unity Press

ALT When the author writes that "[t]he personal interests of the farmer is the same as those of all the working class, being the basics of home, food, and the leisure [time] that comes from living in a peaceful society," this has nothing to do with class interests. Humans, as a species of social mammal, generally have an interest in subsistence and play. But, it is class interests which determine behavior when you want to speak of classes. Unlike proletarians and lumpenproletarians, the small rural landowning owner-operator farmer (or rancher) owns property. They have a literal investment in the capitalist system of private property. Whatever potential they have for anti-governmental politics is linked to their claim on their land, which belongs to them by right of being an “American.” That is why the MAGA movement appeals to the rural landowner as an imaginary reclamation of the past far more than any liberation movement which challenges private property.

ALT The modern capitalist and the modern landowner are both aspects of the bourgeois class. There is nothing that farmers, as landowners, have in common with the oppressed masses of proletarians and lumpenproletarians insofar as the farmers are landowners. The farmer is opposed to the revolutionary masses because they own land. Their psychic anguish is because they fear proletarianization. It is clear the article attempts to portray farmers as an untapped wellspring of revolutionary fervor, if only they could see the foolish error of their ways. It replaces the analysis of class antagonisms with an extremely condescending view of people — it assumes farmers are stupid and don't know what's good for them, that they're being deceived and that’s why they buy into Making America Great Again.

ALT Those subject to arrests because of mental health crises are among the people least capable of fighting back. Someone who is arrested in a mental health crisis is already likely to have limited access to resources; if they had more resources, they would rarely be placed in a position to be arrested in the first place. Private treatment facilities discourage the intervention of police; money smooths over many problems. Of those who are arrested, those who continue to be prosecuted are once again those without resources. After an arrest, if someone with mental health problems can show a stable housing situation, good income, and what lawyers often call evidence that they are “productive members of society,” the prosecutions are frequently dropped or blunted. Those who continue to have housing insecurity, job insecurity, and are not “productive members of society” – which can be read as either workers capable of being exploited or exploiters capable of doing exploitation

ALT Managing mental health crises would require putting resources toward a social system of care. There is no comprehensive system to assist those who are suffering from either acute or long-term mental health crises. Like most everything else in the US, the management of mental health is left to private corporations as a source of profit. This means that anyone who does not have the free resources to be extracted by a treatment corporation is left to fend for themselves and that when crises do occur, they’re shuttled into overloaded treatment centers where they are treated as pieces of meat in a packaging system or simply arrested. If and when they object to such treatment in these overcrowded hospitals and facilities, or if and when their mental health crisis manifests in a fashion that is less palatable, particularly when they’re Black, the police become the mental health system of last reserve. This, despite the fact that there really is no system of first reserve.

ALT Historian Gerald Horne has convincingly argued that the 1776 American Revolution was, in fact, a counter-revolution—one that locked down and expanded the plantation economy and delayed the abolition of African slavery in North America (and perhaps the emancipation of the earth from capital) for nearly a century. A counter-revolution led by property owners—men whose wealth was counted in the flesh of Black human beings and the lands of Indigenous peoples—saw the writing on the wall as enslaved people across the British colonies began rising up, their clamor for freedom threatening to tear down the nightmarish institution of bondage. It is no wonder African peoples of the North American colonies took up arms with the British, choosing red coats over the chains of European-American colonists who sought to expand their plantation empires by seizing yet more Indigenous land.

ALT Liberation will not come without collective action that effectively mobilizes the will of the people, whose labor power sustains the economies of genocide we’re fighting against. Participants dragged themselves out of bed before dawn not to work in service of capital, but to march into the frigid and cold Puget Sound autumn. In the wake of the George Floyd uprisings of 2020, it was uncertain what would unfold or what level of police repression should be expected, and still people came. Unfortunately the tendency to prioritize the symbolic over the material was on display in the false declaration of victory. This left participants visibly distraught at being unable to do more and vocally infuriated at being misled.

ALT The will exists, yet many people remain uncertain where to begin or how to become engaged with more meaningful action. As such, they are easily co-opted into liberal actions that primarily seek symbolic rather than material wins. Energy and passion such as that seen at the Block the Boat action must be effectively stewarded, organized, and directed. This is best done by a well-organized revolutionary vanguard party with a strategy accounting for regional particularities in culture, material conditions, and needs. Our goal in writing this critique is to contribute to a body of knowledge drawn from direct experience and critical analysis, a body of knowledge which we hope will support the strategic elements of building just such a party.

ALT Below are two statements, both written and distributed internally within the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), as a form of damage control for the revealing testimony of former-PSL member, Marissa Sanchez, republished by USU. What follows is an insidious effort to commit a character assassination of the very individual PSL’s procedures betrayed. Two things are admitted to, by both the National Disciplinary Committee and Central Committee: Eugene Puryear did assault Marissa and the procedure for remediation was determined by what Marissa supposedly wanted. These facts alone discredit PSL.

ALT Their ‘victim-centered’ approach claims to be acting in the interest of the survivor, but in reality crushes them beneath social pressure. You can with one, formal, hand offer them the “choice” to expel someone, while with another, hidden, fist threaten them with the many “unfortunate consequences” that real accountability may cause. Which is exactly what Ben Becker did. The paper trail and consensus testimony for the “caring hand” can be brought out if ever needed to demonstrate leadership’s principles, while the existence of the fist can be doubted by smearing the victim as a manipulative liar. Which is exactly what these Committees have done here.

ALT To date, the majority of Red Help have voted on and accepted the criticisms, but refuse to struggle to remediate them. They have acknowledged that the League Political Committee is correct, but, based primarily on the “tone” of the criticism document (which will be published in the Political Committee’s final analysis of this debacle), decided they would not engage any further with any League work. The Political Committee repeatedly asked for their recommendations toward remediation or to adopt the Committee’s recommendations. Red Help responded formally by announcing their intended remediation was to leave the League. The Political Committee rejected this remediation proposal, as it represents a suppression and avoidance of struggle rather than continued commitment to development.

ALT To date, Red Help has permitted the deadline to appoint remediation officers or respond to the Political Committee, to pass without reply. Therefore, both Political and Executive Committees hereby recognize Red Help’s material split from the League and its Member Organizations. All Member Organizations, their individual membership, and orbiting organizations are advised to regard Red Help the same way it would any spontaneous group of radical liberals, one beholden to an unaccountable opportunist, and should take any and all precautions deemed necessary by them as a result. This announcement marks the formal recognition of Red Help’s unprincipled split from the League.

ALT If members of RHATX should ever seek candidacy within the League in the future, visit the article for more information.

ALT "The Eye is Blind That Will Not See"

ALT A couple of months ago I was scheduled to debate Frank Engster in Berlin. As preparation, I did the obvious thing: I tried to read him. I had not encountered his work before, so I hunted down what was available in English. What I found was not profound, nor even particularly difficult — it was simply unreadable. Entire passages were so opaque that they defeated any attempt at interpretation. At first I wondered whether Engster’s argument was simply confused. But the more I read, the more I realised the problem was not Engster’s thought but the English itself. The translation was so mangled that it rendered the text unintelligible.

ALT This is not an isolated case. Over the years I have repeatedly run into English translations of continental Marxist theory that seem designed to mystify. They take concepts that were clear in the original language and bury them under layers of pseudo‑technical jargon. The same pattern appears in Engster’s case. His argument leans heavily on the term valorisation, and he repeatedly uses the phrase “the valorisation of value.” In standard economic English this is not a concept — it is a tautology masquerading as theory. It is the linguistic equivalent of fog. Why does this keep happening? Why do English translations of Marxist theory so often obscure what was originally clear? And what does this tell us about the intellectual culture that produced them? To answer that, we need to look at the two very different traditions of translating Marxism into English.