Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Professor Tommy J. Curry incisively demonstrates that, despite presenting itself as revolutionary and Marxist, the methods of BLM the org, ultimately undermined its stated intent—revealing the movement to be more reactionary and anti-militant than transformative.

143,050 views • 10 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🚨 Inside DSA’s Labor Strategy: Abolish Money, Occupy Workplaces, Run “Cadre Candidates,” Pursue “More Militant Actions” DSA’s electoral work often overshadows its organizing in other arenas, but it would behoove people to pay closer attention to how openly militant parts of its labor strategy can be. Even the bread-and-butter labor work comes with radical qualifiers. Higher wages are “important at least until money is abolished.” Another panelist argues that fights for reforms should be “subordinated” to the “revolutionary struggle” and, ultimately, “to communism.” The goal is to get the working class to a point where workers are willing to “push past things like Taft-Hartley,” “occupy their workplaces,” and pursue “more militant actions.” And when normal union structures cannot deliver a broader strike, “the remaining alternative is wildcatting” — an unauthorized strike undertaken without union leadership’s approval and, as Alex puts it, “illegal by definition.” At the same time, the strategy is to gain more influence inside organized labor itself, through the “rank and file strategy” and even running “cadre candidates” for labor councils and AFL-CIO boards. The stated objective is to keep “building workers towards militant labor action.” The question eventually becomes whether a general strike should win better contracts, force the president to resign, or “bring the system to its knees.”

Stu Smith

173,594 views • 23 days ago