> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://spade-work.org/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Why We Call Ourselves Communists - URL: https://spade-work.org/why-we-call-ourselves-communists/ - Published: 2026-08-17T21:45:55.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-17T22:59:50.000Z - Description: "For us, communism is another name for the democratic self-organization of the vast majority. It is the people in power — directly." - Author: Ben M - Tags: #Communism, Interventions The struggle for socialism has to be fought out by the masses, by the masses alone, breast to breast against capitalism, in every factory, by every proletarian against his employer. Only then will it be a socialist revolution... Socialism will not and cannot be created by decrees; nor can it be established by any government, however socialistic. Socialism must be created by the masses, by every proletarian individual. Where the chains of capitalism are forged, there they must be broken. Only that is socialism, and only thus can socialism be created. What is the form of struggle for socialism? It is the strike. — Rosa Luxemburg at the founding congress of the German Communist Party, December 1918. The relationship between the terms “communism” and “socialism” has been complex and varied over the last few centuries. At one moment in Marx’s thinking, they designated distinct stages of historical progression, where socialism was a period of protracted struggle between the old survivals of the capitalist world and a new, more egalitarian world that might come to be. At the start of the socialist movement, communism did not designate another tendency or politics; it was simply the name of a distant goal, solemnly referenced at party affairs otherwise more consciously focused on the day-to-day work of building organization and struggling for ameliorative reforms. It was not until the First World War that a cleavage emerged. Only after the crushing betrayal of much of the socialist officialdom in Europe — who flung themselves into support of a catastrophic war against all their internationalist principles — and the success of the Bolsheviks in leading workers’, peasants’, and soldiers’ councils into power in the October Revolution, did communism and socialism appear as distinctive tendencies. This required organizational splits, the elaboration of new theories of power, and the rethinking of the ultimate ends of politics itself. These events recast the whole internal history of the workers’ movement, which now appeared to be two dueling organizational experiences, each one present from the very beginning. For many, this appeared under the heading of “reform or revolution.” Or, for us: the power of the masses against the power of those who might govern on their behalf. But the relationship between these terms only grew more complex as the 20th century ran on: Communism was a world filled with many splits and fissures, and the political and strategic differences among those who rallied under its banner multiplied in the decades that followed the Soviet revolution. Despite the origins of the socialist/communist split, simply calling yourself a communist did not guarantee, through some magic incantation, that you would arrive at even the more left-wing position — let alone a more effective one, as countless examples in Italy or Chile or the United States would show. Although some would accuse — or champion — communism for its consistent position as the most radical option on the left, the historical record shows that no term, name, or concept can provide such a guarantee. > "We are oriented toward what we call “mass political work.” Our ambition is to rebuild democratic organizations and a culture of working-class solidarity, against the anti-democratic state and the little autocracies of landlords, bosses, border guards and cops." Today, with the 20th century behind us, for better or worse communism normally invokes the most Jacobin tendencies of the left. It is synonymous with the centralization of decision-making and more authoritarian instincts. For many, it is strictly associated with an overriding emphasis on “party-building,” which is imagined as the means through which the movement will be positioned to overcome the limits that workers encounter when fighting in their discrete workplaces or in street-based social movements: The party will allow the movement to think strategically about itself, and through its collective discipline finally rout the power of ruling-class forces within the state who act as the final guarantors of the exploitation and domination of the vast majority. To many in the movement, these are communism’s watchwords: centralization, party, state power. Like geese, like gander — these instincts are what bring together both the power fantasies of internet Stalinists and the Popular Frontism of many American communists. Paradoxically, then, our caucus, the Communist Caucus of DSA, has developed a reputation that tends in the opposite direction. We are oriented toward what we call “mass political work.” Our ambition is to rebuild democratic organizations and a culture of working-class solidarity, against the anti-democratic state and the little autocracies of landlords, bosses, border guards and cops. We are laser-focused, in other words, on developing a rich ecology of working-class organization, where everyday people can democratically deliberate about what their lives might look like together — not necessarily all converging into one place, or working in lockstep at every turn, but waging fights with a logic specific to their neighborhood, workplace, or the needs of the social movement in question. For us, communism is another name for the democratic self-organization of the vast majority. It is *the people in power* — directly. > "For us, while there are relays and resonances between these different instances of socialist politics, the most fundamental element — the self-organization of the exploited and dispossessed for dignity and power, exercised directly by themselves and on the terrain of their own lives rather than in some far-flung government office — will not happen automatically." What does it mean to fight for democracy against the dependency of the market and the dictatorship of capital? It is not simply a matter of socialists sitting in government. While we recognize the tactical utility of socialists in office and government, our tendency is skeptical about the overemphasis within the movement on state power, often at the expense of building up the musculature of working-class people to wage fights collectively. Our caucus is skeptical that working-class power will mechanically “trickle down” from successful elections, from redistributive policy programs, or even a socialist government itself. For us, while there are relays and resonances between these different instances of socialist politics, the most fundamental element — the self-organization of the exploited and dispossessed for dignity and power, exercised directly by themselves and on the terrain of their own lives rather than in some far-flung government office — will not happen automatically. It requires organizers: the active effort of militants and organizers to find these moments of self-organization, to accompany other workers in strengthening and developing them, and to help them link up with others to augment their power. It is a political culture and strategic emphasis that, if you were glancing at your Twitter feed, is often at odds with many who call themselves “communist.” > "Every political moment is different. Ours is no less singular. From our vantage point, there is no need to draw a harsh dividing line between communists and other currents within the socialist movement." It might seem strange then that we adopt the term, and proudly. So why do we? It’s because communism is another name for the emancipation of all, for all, by all; it is the riddle of liberation solved. It is not only a distant aspiration, but designates a politics and a method of political work that is premised on the political power of everyday people, exercised in organizations that they have built by and for themselves, which looks to roll back the power of private property and whose country is the whole world. When we adopt the term, we are tapping into a longstanding tradition, present from the start of the workers’ movement though not always conscious of itself. It is a tradition sometimes braided with socialism, and at other times at opposite and fraying ends, but always active anywhere the dispossessed are in struggle for another world. 1. **We are communists because it names a new kind of political power: the self-activity and organization of working-class people**. At the origins of the socialist and communist split was the birth of a new kind of organization: councils, composed by people who had never before had a say in how their lives might look. The genius of the October Revolution was that it could imagine a practice of politics that was not about the passive or active consent of the vast majority, who worked on behalf of others who made decisions for them, or who provided the muscle for a project whose ultimate decisions terminated in the hands of some distant representative. Instead, communism named the construction of a power that they could exercise collectively and directly, to advance their struggle and construct a new world. Communism continues to designate a politics that is more interested in wherever workers, tenants, refugees and immigrants, the exploited and oppressed, are turning to one another, taking power for themselves, at scales large and small. It is what Lenin called “democracy at the widest masses.” 2. **We are communists because it names the direct struggle against the grand and petty tyrannies of private property.** For us, communism signals a tendency not to delay the struggle against the prerogatives of capital to a later day, but to take the struggle against its direct and indirect influence on our life as its main locus of our activity, and immediately. Where the mainline of the socialist movement at the time of the above mentioned split was carrying out a slow strategy of attrition, avoiding direct or explosive contests over power, communists held that the struggle against property could be carried out in the here and now. For us today, that means not waiting for the advent of a socialist government for workers or tenants to raise political demands or questions of proletarian control. Within everyday struggles, there are frequent instances where workers’ or tenants’ control may already be imminent or ongoing: over the shape and length of the working day or the pace of work; of how the collective space of our homes and neighborhoods are used or invested into; on what safety and security in our cities look like; even over what we work on and the official policies of governments that we are not represented by. Such instances of control are present anywhere that groups of workers start to democratically assume responsibility for the administration and political decisions that they were previously excluded from – a process that is not reducible to government, nor waits for it to commence. It is happening beneath the surface, in the course of everyday class struggle. 3. **We are communists because it names a commitment to internationalism against imperialism.** The emergence of communism as a distinctive tendency within the movement emerged in the cataclysms of the First World War, and it distinguished itself by refusing to join the gravitational pull of nationalism, chauvinism, and militarism. The war consigned tens of millions to death and rolled back the accumulated strength of a socialist and democratic counterculture built up over generations. Our politics too refuses to recede to an exclusive set of domestic concerns. How could we? The proletariat of the United States is already international, capital and its bearers traverse the borders of a nation-state, and the stakes of our struggles reverberate far from where they are waged. The whole world is our country. Every political moment is different. Ours is no less singular. From our vantage point, there is no need to draw a harsh dividing line between communists and other currents within the socialist movement. We are in a period of active experimentation, and our involvement in the socialist movement, even as organizers whose work mainly takes place outside of the framework of DSA, has been tremendously productive and clarifying. Our group exists to build and expand our tendency, to train and develop more organizers interested in fortifying the initiative of everyday people against capitalism and imperialism. Though our approach has a logic of its own, our comrades, whether or not they call themselves communists, make that project manifest anytime they turn towards their neighbors and coworkers and begin to build power from below. ## Sign up for the **Spadework* Newsletter Everything you've ever wanted to know about communism. Right in your inbox. Subscribe Email sent! Check your inbox to complete your signup. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.