On June 25, I was expelled from Socialist Alternative (SAlt) in the US, along with about twenty other comrades. These expulsions are part of an ongoing effort to purge all members of our faction, the Faction for Revolutionary Leadership (FRL), from SAlt and its international organization, the International Socialist Alternative (ISA).

In April, after a group of other FRL members were expelled, they published a letter in Cosmonaut which laid out our faction’s positions and described the bureaucratic campaign against us, so I won’t rehash all that here.^[1] Instead, I want to share three “takeaways” from the faction fight that has played out in SAlt over the past several months.

I am sharing these takeaways here because, to build a Marxist organization that can actually achieve its aims, we need to understand why the Marxist left in the US is currently so weak – and do something about it. I obviously do not have all the answers, but I hope this letter can contribute in a small way to political clarification on the left.

1. Marxists have a responsibility to fight for scientific socialism, but in SAlt, being a scientific socialist can get you expelled.

Living under capitalism means – among other things – that the mass media, the education system, and the research institutions are largely controlled by the capitalist class. This creates a bourgeois “common sense” that dominates society, shapes the way people think, and frustrates the development of genuine class consciousness.

To make any progress toward our long-term aims, we have to wage a persistent struggle against this “common sense”, countering it with a program grounded in the objective interests and historical mission of the working class. The essential point is that the ideas of scientific socialism do not come to people spontaneously; they must be fought for.

For the purposes of this letter, a few principles of scientific socialism are worth emphasizing. First, the structure of society is rooted in the organization of work, and this creates a fundamental division between an oppressed class and an oppressor class. Second, this social structure is maintained through the oppressor class’s control over the state. And, third, as a result of the first two points, to change the way the world works, it is necessary to smash the state institutions that stand in the way of human progress.

These principles have very important consequences. One consequence is that socialist programs have to deal concretely with the need for revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist state – an issue I have already discussed at length in another contribution.^[2] But a second consequence is that wars between non-socialist states can play a progressive role, insofar as these wars destroy the institutions that sustain outmoded forms of class rule. As Lenin and Zinoviev wrote:

In history there have been numerous wars which, in spite of all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited the development of mankind by helping to destroy the exceptionally harmful and reactionary institutions (for example, autocracy or serfdom)...^[3]Thus, for example, the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire were historically progressive because they destroyed Rome’s slave-owning aristocracy and laid the basis for a higher mode of production to develop. Similarly, Marx and Engels supported the North against the South in the US Civil War, and Lenin hailed the defeat of “reactionary Europe” by “progressive Asia” during the Russo-Japanese War.^[4] More recently, non-Marxist academics have analyzed data covering the past twelve thousand years and presented systematic evidence for the way “military competition” has destroyed states built on more backward institutions, and fostered the development of more progressive ones.^[5] All of this speaks to the fact that, while not all wars are progressive, there are some wars in which we have an objective interest in seeing one side defeat the other. Thus, a scientific socialist is not a pacifist.

What is the relevance of these ideas today? Since 1945, US imperialism has played a massive role in holding back the progress of humanity, by restricting other countries’ access to advanced technology, keeping retrograde governments in power, and doing everything possible to stamp out socialism. Marxists have long recognized the reactionary role of imperialism, and from this they derived the need to side with oppressed countries at war against imperialist powers. As Trotsky wrote, “in the struggle between a civilized, imperialist, democratic republic and a backward, barbaric monarchy in a colonial country, the socialists are completely on the side of the oppressed country notwithstanding its monarchy….”^[6] Therefore, during the recent war between the US and Iran, and on the basis of scientific socialist principles, our faction called for the defeat of US imperialism and the defense of Iran.

In contrast, during the early days of the war, the ISA leadership took a pacifist position.^[7] At around the same time, they moved to expel FRL members on the basis that our faction “does not share the core politics of Socialist Alternative,” and in explaining the reasons why they wanted to kick us out, they particularly emphasized our call for the defense of Iran.^[8]

2. SAlt’s leaders are an obstacle to the creation of a workers’ party in the US. Rather than building a party, they are building a bureaucratic sect.

During the campaign to expel us, SAlt’s leaders sometimes invoked the history of Bolshevism as a justification. In reality, the history of Bolshevism provides a framework for understanding why these expulsions were so unwarranted and destructive.

To bring about socialism, it will be necessary to organize the active, class-conscious workers – sometimes called the advanced workers – into an independent party with a clear program for revolution. The history of Bolshevism reflects this thinking.^[9] To see this, it is useful to look at what happened in 1903, when the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions first emerged in the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP), and compare this with what happened in 1912, when the final split occurred.

In 1903, Marxists were still a marginal force in Russia, and they understood that it would destroy their credibility in the working class if they split over issues that workers found trivial or incomprehensible. As Lenin wrote:

To be a party of the masses not only in name, we must get ever wider masses to share in all Party affairs, steadily elevating them from political indifference to protest and struggle, from a general spirit of protest to the conscious adoption of Social-Democratic views, from the adoption of these views to support of the movement, from support to organised membership in the Party. Can we achieve this result without giving the widest publicity to matters on whose decision the nature of our influence on the masses will depend? The workers will cease to understand us and will desert us, as a general staff without an army, if splits take place in our ranks over trivial differences, says the author; and it is quite true.^[10]

Thus he proposed that, rather than splitting, the various trends in the RSDLP should begin a series of public exchanges to clarify where they stood.^[11]

In contrast, by 1912, after a long series of public polemics between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, it became clear that the Menshevik “liquidators” were undermining the RSDLP’s fight for a democratic republic – a central element of the party’s program – by dismantling the party’s underground organizations. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks had gained leadership of nearly all the major industrial unions in Russia and could credibly claim that they had won the advanced workers to their side. For the Bolsheviks, this meant that, in 1912, there was a basis for creating a separate party.^[12]

At issue here is a basic difference between a workers’ party and a sect. As Hal Draper argued, the organizational boundaries of a sect are defined by personal agreement with a rigid set of ideas, while a working-class party is “the political arm of decisive sectors of the working class, which politically reflects (or refracts) the working class in motion as it is.”^[13] Therefore, sects can (and do) split over issues that the working class finds trivial or incomprehensible, but in the process, they destroy their own credibility. In contrast, for Marxists seeking to build a workers’ party, splits only make sense if “decisive sectors” of the class understand the underlying debates, have chosen a side, and see that the issues are fundamental enough to justify the creation of separate organizations. Thus, unless a high bar has been met, splits and group expulsions are counterproductive to the fight for a workers’ party.

Although a lot has changed since 1912, the basic principles above are still relevant for anyone hoping to build a workers’ party today. Consider Your Party in the UK, which initially showed promise but is now imploding: in the most recent election, it ran 20 candidates across 17 wards, and not a single one of them was elected. A May 27 YouGov poll found that the party’s public support is at 0% (not a typo). To understand Your Party’s collapse, just take a second and think about who would have built the party in the first place. Who would have organized branch meetings? Who would have recruited new members? In many cases, the people who would have done this work are the ones who were already committed to left politics in the first place, and were already members of a pre-existing organization as a consequence. Unfortunately, Jeremy Corbyn kicked these people out of Your Party by banning dual membership. In this way, he has decimated the party by purging the advanced workers who would have built it.

The point is that we will only build a workers’ party by politically unifying advanced workers – including many of those who are currently in separate organizations – against the ruling class. Bureaucratic expulsions are counterproductive to this project because they fracture the left even further. With their actions – particularly the decision to expel FRL members for their Marxist positions – SAlt’s leaders demonstrate that they are an obstacle to the process of political unification that a party would require. Instead of a party, they are building a bureaucratic sect.

3. If you are in a “Marxist” sect, you should stay as long as you can to fight for a better way forward – and then work with us to build the foundations for a party.

Polling suggests that over 30 million Americans have a favorable view of communism.^[14] If this is true, then why is the Marxist left so weak and isolated? Clearly, multiple factors are at play here, but in my opinion, part of the answer lies in the fact that many self-described Marxist groups have the same basic problem as SAlt: their programs offer no serious ideas for how we would actually bring a communist society into existence, and rather than allowing space to develop a stronger program through democratic discussion, the leaders of these groups work to isolate and/or purge members with dissenting points of view. Under these conditions, how could the Marxist left not be weak and isolated?

And, unfortunately, those 30 million potential communists are not going to spontaneously create a new and healthier Marxist left out of thin air. Instead, some of them join existing “Marxist” sects and then leave in frustration, while many others react with understandable indifference toward the far left and stay away from it altogether. Therefore, to move forward, it will be necessary to settle accounts with the posers who lead the sects.

So, if you find yourself in a sect, you should stick around and work with other members to fight for a program based on the principles of scientific socialism. Then, after your sect kicks you out, come join us in DSA to fight for a clean break from the Democrats, and get involved with the united-front work to support independent socialist campaigns across the country.^[15] Through these struggles, we can begin to forge a united communist left in the US, and start constructing the foundations for a party.

- Stephen Thompson

1. International Socialist Alternative (Revolutionary), “Letter: Expelled from the ISA for wanting to defend Iran and refusing to support Democrats!,” Cosmonaut Magazine, April 13, 2026, https://cosmonautmag.com/2026/04/letter-expelled-from-the-isa-for-wanting-to-defend-iran-and-refusing-to-support-democrats/. Also see our follow-up letter which responds to criticism of the first one: International Socialist Alternative (Revolutionary), “Imperialist China?,” Weekly Worker, May 21, 2026, https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1586/letters/.

   ↩

2. Stephen Thompson, “Artisanal Politics, Bolshevism, and the Path to a Marxist Proto-Party”, Cosmonaut Magazine, August 13, 2025.

   ↩

3. V.I. Lenin and G.Y. Zinoviev, Socialism and War, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s-w/ch01.htm.

   ↩

4. V.L. Lenin, “The Fall of Port Arthur”, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/jan/14.htm.

   ↩

5. Peter Turchin, The Great Holocene Transformation, (Beresta Books, 2025).

   ↩

6. Leon Trotsky, “Lenin on Imperialism,” https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/02/lenin.htm.

   ↩

7. “11 Days Of War On Iran—Trump Has Unleashed A Nightmare,” Socialist Alternative, March 10, 2026, https://web.archive.org/web/20260310190640/https://www.socialistalternative.org/2026/03/10/11-days-of-war-on-iran-trump-has-unleashed-a-nightmare/. Later, after criticism by our faction, ISA’s leaders shifted their position and began to call for the defeat of US imperialism, but they still refused to side with the country that the US was actually attacking.

   ↩

8. See the motion to expel our Seattle members, and our response, here: https://linktr.ee/int_salt_rev

   ↩

9. For a discussion of the central role played by “advanced” or “purposive” workers in Lenin’s thought, I recommend reading Lars T. Lih, Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? in Context (Haymarket, 2008), 335-346

   ↩

10. V.I. Lenin, “Letter to Iskra,” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1903/nov/25a.htm.

    ↩

11. Ibid.

    ↩

12. Neil Harding, Lenin’s Political Thought, Volume 1: Theory and Practice in the Democratic Revolution (Haymarket, 2009), 249-305.

    ↩

13. Hal Draper, “Anatomy of the Micro-Sect,” https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1973/xx/microsect.htm.

    ↩

14. Emily Ekins and Hunter Johnson, “81 Percent Say They Can’t Afford to Pay Higher Taxes Next Year,” Cato Institute, April 14, 2025. The poll found that, among Americans aged 18 and over, about 14% had a favorable view of communism. This translates to around 37 million people.

    ↩

15. Jason Thiel, “Vote Socialist: New Independent Socialist Campaigns Just Dropped”, United Front for a Workers Party, May 23, 2026, https://unitedfrontforaworkersparty.org/article/vote-socialist.

    ↩